© Jonathan Baker, author of the blog Questioning Answers in Genesis
A recent article at the Institute for
Creation Research (ICR), entitled
Trace Metals
Study Confirms Fossil Has Original Feathers, represents
the latest in a series of misguided attacks on conventional
fossil ages, which appeal to biochemical remnants as
evidence for recent burial. Author Brian Thomas renewed the
case in response to
a rather ingenious and novel analytical method applied
to an Early Cretaceous (~120 Ma), fossilized bird.
Researchers at the University of Manchester used synchotron
x-ray technology to map out trace metals in the avian
fossil—namely copper and calcium, which are abundant in
feathers and bones, respectively. The
resulting image clearly shows the original distribution
of hard and soft biological components. But what do the data
actually reflect?
Have you ever looked at an artist's rendition of an ancient
species (dinosaur, bird, etc.) and wondered how they pick
colors for the skin and feathers? In many cases, the choice
is educated guesswork—an artist's touch. But the researchers
in this study employed a more scientific approach. The
pigments in bird feathers contain
organometallic compounds—essentially a carbon-based
structure that binds to a specific metal. Hemaglobin in your
blood, for example, is an organic compound that binds to
iron so as to color the blood red. Using x-ray analysis to
determine the
coordination chemistry of trace copper in fossilized
feathers, the researchers concluded that the copper derived
from a dark pigment called eumelanin. By mapping out where
copper is concentrated in the fossil, they inferred that the
bird (Confuciusornis sanctus) had dark-brown body feathers,
and relatively light-colored wings.
The title of Mr. Thomas's article is very misleading on this
point. The Early Cretaceous fossil does not contain original
feathers—not even close. All that is left are traces of
copper, bound up by singular molecules of cyclic chelates,
and a carbonized imprint where the feathers' organic
components decayed long ago into the rock. Instead,
Wogelius et al. (2011) argued that the organometallic
compounds "most likely derived from original eumelanin,"
indicating that even the pigments have all broken down. When
this occurred, the eumelanin released the copper chelates,
which are now bound up in the mineral lattices of the rock
and very well protected from the elements.
The researchers demonstrated the ubiquitous presence of
eumelanin-derived copper chelates in other well preserved,
avian fossils—both older and younger than the famed
Confuciusornis sanctus. They concluded that "trace element
chemistry provides a robust and consistent method for
identifying pigment because metal zoning may be preserved
long after melanosome structures have been destroyed." In
other words, copper chelates naturally break down over time,
releasing copper ions into the rock. Copper is not very
mobile, however, and binds strongly to oxides, hydroxides,
carbonates, etc. Thus the distribution of inorganic copper
minerals in fossilized feathers should still reflect that of
the original feathers, long after organometallic compounds
have all broken down (as in one of the samples).
How did these compounds survive some 120 million years of
burial? The findings of
Wogelius et al. (2011) are impressive, to be sure
(that's why they were published in Science), but scientists
have long used remnants of ancient biochemicals to interpret
the history of life. Most commonly, these biomarkers are
extracted from kerogen and hydrocarbons (oil/gas), which
contain numerous fragments of ancient biomolecules. Either
way, the stability of organic molecules highly depends on
the environment in which they are stored. Organometallic
compounds—like the copper chelates described in this
study—are most stable in reducing (low-oxygen), non-acidic
environments, where the temperature remains moderately low.
Given that these compounds would have seen very little
interaction with fluids after burial, it is reasonable to
expect that some would survive until today.
The verdict?
Mr. Thomas's statement that "the original organic molecules
have hardly decayed" is simply false. Nearly all organic
molecules have since disappeared, or were reduced to a
carbon residue that now stains the rock. He goes on to infer
that "fissile organic molecules had not been altered into
more resistant chemicals", yet the fissile eumelanin (a
carboxylic-acid polymer) is no longer present—only the
relatively stable copper chelates.
Arguing from ignorant conjecture, Mr. Thomas adds: "[After]
only half a million years...copper should now appear
randomly distributed among the rocks, having naturally
diffused into the surroundings." How he determines this
timeframe is unstated, but it is inaccurate nonetheless.
Geological systems cannot be described by such a broad
generalization. In sedimentary strata where the water-rock
interaction is high, or acidic groundwater prevails, his
statement would almost be true. But these conditions hardly
describe that of the Cretaceous and Eocene fossils, which
accumulated in anoxic lake bottoms, and whose sediments are
interbedded with ashfall—a low-permeability barrier to
meteoric water.
Contrary to Mr. Thomas's enthusiastic review, the modern
condition of these fossils is inconsistent with a recent
burial (some 4,500 years ago, according to Mr. Thomas). If
that were the case, we should find significantly more
organic material, as in Quaternary fossils that Mr. Thomas
would claim were buried within hundreds of years of the
Flood (say, 4,000 years ago?). Not only do the recent
findings by
Wogelius et al. (2011) corroborate the conventional
geological story, but they thoroughly falsify Mr. Thomas's
position.*
*Don't forget to check out the artist's rendition of
Confuciusornis sanctus at the Audubon Magazine
blog, which also contains a helpful overview of the
publication in Science.
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young-earth creationism believer, click here.
More Institute for Creation Research Rebuttals
Leave a comment about this article on our Facebook page.
Did you know that you can be a Christian,
and believe that the earth is billions of years old? You can even
believe in evolution and be a Christian. There is no conflict
between science and the Bible...all one needs is a proper
understanding how to merge science and the Bible. To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.