Monday, May 28, 2007

A proposal to radiocarbon-date the pollen of the Shroud of Turin

Note: This is an early version of my paper of the same name, which has now been published in December's British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter. That paper differs in some respects (mainly in the Protocols section) from this early blog version. I have since created my other blog, TheShroudofTurin, and all my posts subsequent on the Shroud of Turin are now there.


Introduction
After my post of 22-May-07 about the pollen on the Shroud of Turin from plants native only to the Middle-East and Turkey being strong evidence for the Shroud being the very burial sheet of Jesus Christ, and having previously posted 06-May-07, 09-May-07 and 14-May-07 on the problems of radiocarbon dating the Shroud's linen, the question occurred to me, "Why not radiocarbon-date the pollen from the Shroud of Turin?"

[Above: Scanning electron micrograph of pollen grains, Wikipedia]

I have learned a lot about the Shroud since I first read about it in January 2005, and had recently re-read my books and articles on radiocarbon-dating the Shroud and the analysis of the pollen collected from the Shroud, for my above recent series defending the Shroud from the charge (by a Christian) of being "bogus". But I could not recall ever having read where the pollen from the Shroud had been proposed to be radiocarbon-dated.

I emailed a leading Shroud of Turin researcher and he was not aware of it having ever been proposed that the Shroud's pollen be radiocarbon dated. But he thought that might be because the quantity of pollen required would require the destruction of most (if not all) the Shroud's pollen. I replied to him that my understanding was that with advances in the Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method of radiocarbon dating (the same method used to date the Shroud's linen in 1988), that much less pollen was now required (which I have now found is in fact so-see below). Although he had reservations about the validity of radiocarbon dating in general, he agreed that if only a small proportion of the Shroud's pollen would need to be destroyed then my proposal that its pollen be radiocarbon-dated was worthwhile.

Radiocarbon dating of pollen in general
Pollen is a powder comprising individual pollen grains, which are the male gametes or sperm cells of flowering plants. When mature a pollen-grain has a tough outer wall called the exine, which is made of a tough organic polymer called sporopollenin and has spines and other characteristics which are unique to each genus or even species. Because the pollen exine is so durable, the earliest fossil of a flowering plant is pollen, 130 million years old. The carbon dating of pollen is now an important part of a branch of science, palynology. Advances in AMS radiocarbon dating have meant that as little as 50-100 micrograms (i.e. millionths of a gram), can be dated. And given that the average pollen grain weighs 1/4000th of a gram, or 250 micrograms, "analyses of very small samples," including "dating of single pollen grains ... is now commonplace" (my emphasis):

"Radiocarbon dating is a relatively new science, in use only since the 1960's. As our knowledge 14C increases, we expect that both the accuracy and precision of radiocarbon dates will increase. Technological advances have made analyses of very small samples possible, using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). AMS dating of single pollen grains, ostrocode shells and plant seeds is now commonplace." ("14C (radiocarbon) Dating)," U.S. Geological Survey, 2 May 2001).

Radiocarbon-dating the pollen from the Shroud
Since pollen is just another part of its parent plant, with the same carbon, photosynthesised from atmospheric CO2, that carbon in the CO2 would have, other things being equal, the same proportion of carbon-12 to the isotope carbon-14 for every plant that was alive at the same time. That includes the pollen on the Shroud, and the flax that the linen the Shroud was woven from, although the latter may have been woven many years before and therefore could have an older radiocarbon date. However the pollen on the Shroud from plants that are native to around Jerusalem, e.g. Zygophyllum dunosum, Gundelia tournefortii, Cistus creticus and Capparis aegyptia, should, if the Shroud is the very burial sheet that covered Jesus' crucified body, all be from the same year, ~30AD, although presumably radiocarbon dating is not accurate enough to resolve down to the very year.

Pollen being so hard and durable that it may last for many millions of years, presumably would not be as subject to contamination by a biofilm or bioplastic layer of younger microorganisms and so a more accurate radiocarbon date (i.e. less subject to confounding variables) should be possible from the pollen on the Shroud than from the linen of the Shroud itself. Also, Dr Frei's pollen samples came from deep into the weave of the Shroud and so may have been less subject to contamination by human handling.

Objections to radiocarbon dating the Shroud's pollen
The first objection might be to radiocarbon dating itself. But as far as I am aware, most (if not all) leading Shroud researchers accept that radiocarbon dating is, in principle valid, with the problem being not radiocarbon dating per se but the implicit ceteris paribus "other things being equal" condition that applies to every scientific experiment. And also the arrogance of some scientists who don't make this clear in their pronouncements to the general public via the media. In the case of the Shroud, as historian Ian Wilson points out in his extensive discussion of the problems of radiocarbon dating archaeological artifacts in his book, "Holy Faces, Secret Places" (1991), and also in this video interview, there are major problems carbon-dating a porous material like linen, particularly when it has wrapped bodies. However, those same problems would not apply to carbon-dating a non-porous material like pollen.

Since radiocarbon dating of single grains of pollen is now feasible, the objection that dating the pollen grains on the Shroud would require the destruction of a significant proportion of the pollen collected from it, no longer applies. Moreover there seems to be ample pollen collected from the Shroud to enable a representative sample of all, or at least most, of the pollen species to be dated. For example, Ian Wilson quotes from a paper at a 1989 conference that, "Eighty-eight pollen grains were counted in approximately 2 square centimetres on a dorsal `sidestrip' tape," a "hundred and sixty-three grains were counted on the same size area on a tape from the left arm" and "an astounding circa 300 grains were counted on a tape taken from near the face in a comparative size area" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.82). Indeed, according to one estimate there may be from 47,000 to 94,000 pollen grains on the Shroud."

The objection that the Shroud is sacred and should not be further destroyed, no matter how small the sample required, would presumably not apply to the pollen from the Shroud. Also, while the Pope is the legal owner of the Shroud, and therefore of its pollen, Dr Max Frei collected his pollen from the Shroud in 1973 and 1978, when it was then the property of King Umberto II of Savoy, who upon his death in 1983 bequeathed the Shroud to the Pope. After Frei's death his pollen collection was passed by Frei's wife to ASSIST (Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin) in the USA (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.81-82). So ASSIST is the legal owner of the pollen in the Frei collection and therefore the Pope's permission is not required to test those pollens (see also under Protocols below).

Testing Shroud origin and image-formation theories
Other advantages of radiocarbon dating the Shroud's pollen is that it would enable the testing of the theory that the Edessa Cloth (1st-2nd, 6th century), the Mandylion (10th-13th century) and the Shroud of Turin (14th century), are one and the same. If the pollen from plants on the Shroud that are native to Turkey (e.g. Atraphaxis spinosa, Prunus spartioides and Epimedium pubigerum (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, pp.38-39) are carbon-dated over the period the Eddessa Cloth and Mandylion are known to have been in Eddessa and Constantinople (2nd, 6th, 10th-13th centuries) then that will be strong evidence that these three cloths are one and the same.

Then if the pollen from plants native to Israel are carbon-dated to the early 1st century, that will be further evidence that the Shroud was the very burial sheet of Jesus. However, if the image on the Shroud is the result of radiation from Jesus' body at His resurrection, then it is possible (if not probable) that that radiation increased the carbon-14 level for both the Shroud (Phillips, T.J., "Shroud Irradiated With Neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 1989, p.594) and any pollen which was on the Shroud. Therefore, if the pollen from plants which were native to Israel had a radiocarbon date that was younger than the pollen from the Turkey plants, then that would be strong evidence for the image on the Shroud being the result of Jesus' resurrection. On the other hand, if the Israel pollen does not show a such an anomalously younger radiocarbon date, then that would be evidence against the radiation scorch theory, or at least against the radiation being nuclear and a contribution to the Shroud's claimed 14th century radiocarbon date.

Protocols
Clear protocols should be drawn up which, as far as possible, avoid mistakes of the past and seek to anticipate future mistakes and to counter all reasonable objections.

Control of the entire process must be completely in the hands of the Shroud pro-authenticity community. Since ASSIST is pro-authenticity and is the legal owner of the Frei Shroud pollen collection, it is assumed that ASSIST will, directly or indirectly, coordinate and control any radiocarbon-dating of that pollen.

Rather than let universities, with their perceived anti-supernaturalistic bias, carry out the tests, independent, private radiocarbon dating laboratories should be contracted, or a purely commercial basis to carry out the work. The carbon-dating of the Shroud's pollen should be blind experiments (as the 1988 dating of the Shroud's linen was supposed to be but was not), in that the testing laboratories should not know which pollens were from the Shroud and which were control pollens of the same species.

What if the pollen's radiocarbon-date is also 14th century?
If the Shroud really did originate in the 14th century, then it would be better to know that. So if the radiocarbon-date of the pollen from the Shroud also turned out to be 14th century, then that would support the forgery theory, that, in the words the late Oxford nuclear physicist Professor Edward Hall who pioneered the AMS radiocarbon method and whose laboratory was one of the three which carried out the 1988 dating of the Shroud, "Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it."

However, even that would not prove that the Shroud was a forgery. There is one very good reason why, if the Shroud really is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ, that both the linen and the pollen on it, would have a younger radiocarbon age than its actual chronological age. Which is, that then the Shroud and its pollen would have been stored for many centuries in castles made of granite. In which case, as per this Wikipedia article below that granite is a "source of radiation " containing "around 10 to 20 parts per million of uranium," and in "buildings constructed primarily from natural granite, it is possible to be exposed to approximately 200 mrems per year" not to mention that cellars and basements within "uraniferous granites can become a trap for radon gas":

"Granite is a normal, geological, source of radiation in the natural environment. Granite has around 10 to 20 parts per million of uranium. By contrast, black granite (typically actually a tonalite, gabbro or diorite) has 1 to 5ppm uranium, and limestones and sedimentary rocks usually equally low. Many large granite plutons are the sources for palaeochannel-hosted or roll front uranium ore deposits, where the uranium washes into the sediments from the granite uplands and associated, often highly radioactive, pegmatites. In buildings constructed primarily from natural granite, it is possible to be exposed to approximately 200 mrems per year. Granite could be considered a potential natural radiological hazard as, for instance, villages located over granite may be susceptible to higher doses of radiation than other communites [sic]. Cellars and basements sunk into soils formed over or from particularly uraniferous granites can become a trap for radon gas, which is heavier than air. However, in the majority of cases, although granite is a significant source of natural radiation as compared to other rocks it is not often an acute health threat or significant risk factor." ("Granite: Natural Radiation," Wikipedia, 22 May 2007).

So, even if the pollen on the Shroud returned a 14th century radiocarbon date, when considering the very strong historical evidence for the Shroud going all the way back to the 1st century, and given the failure of all alternative forgery theories, if would still be rational to maintain that the Shroud was the 1st century burial sheet of Christ, albeit with an anomalously young radiocarbon age. After all, why would a forger go to so much trouble in the 14th century, as to, amongst many other things, use a linen cloth that had been "exposed to open air in the areas of both Turkey and Istanbul to ensure the proper pollen spread" when "the existence of pollen would not be discovered for at least another six hundred years," in an age when such "relics were forged frequently with no such sensitivity to detail" including "notoriously poor copies" of the Shroud itself that "were held in esteem" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1990, pp.77-78. My emphasis). But if the pollen from the Shroud returned dates markedly different from the 14th century, then that would be strong evidence against the 14th century radiocarbon date of the Shroud.

Conclusion
As I emailed the Shroud researcher, "to be quite honest and upfront, even if the radiocarbon date of the pollen turns out to be ... ~14th century), I (and I presume many others like me, perhaps even yourself) would still not necessarily accept that the Shroud was a fake. ... because the problems of forgery alternatives and the evidence that the Shroud goes back to the 6th and even to the 1st century AD, seems to me to be overwhelming. "

That is, the downside risk is minimal for those of us who consider the Shroud to be genuine, but the potential upside is maximal! We have little to lose (since most who consider the Shroud to be a fake no doubt base it on the 1988 radiocarbon 14th century date anyway) but much to gain.

I am writing this proposal to this my blog in order to publicly stake my claim for scientific priority for this line of research, in case no one else has thought of it (or at least stated it publicly). I intend to develop this proposal further in a paper to be submitted to one or more of the Shroud of Turin societies. I would appreciate it if anyone who reads this knows (and can give references) of anyone else who had already proposed that the pollen from the Shroud of Turin be radiocarbon-dated. I would also appreciate any suggestions to improve this proposal. Feedback can be via comments to this post or via email (my email address can be obtained from my home page).

PS: When I wrote above that "the evidence that the Shroud goes back to the 6th and even to the 1st century AD, seems to me to be overwhelming," I had not yet got to that section of Mark Guscin's excellent book, "The Oviedo Cloth" (1998) on the Sudarium of Oviedo, where he points out that "The most striking thing about all the stains" on the Sudarium, "consist of blood and ... pulmonary oedema fluid," which is consistent with death by crucifixion, "is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud" and yet "the sudarium has been in Oviedo since 1075," so that alone "casts a great shadow of doubt over the results of the Shroud's carbon dating" (my emphasis)! As mentioned in part #5 of my Bogus: Shroud of Turin? series, I will in future be posting in that series on, "The Sudarium of Oviedo's matching images of blood, pollen and plants with those on the Shroud."

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


"The Stains The only markings visible to the naked eye on the sudarium are stains, so these should clearly play the central role in studies of the cloth. The main stains consist of one part blood and six parts pulmonary oedema fluid. This is very significant because it ... is the generally accepted opinion that people who were crucified died from asphyxiation: with the body hanging, its weight supported by the wrists nailed to the cross, it was virtually impossible to breathe. .... When a person dies in this way, his lungs are filled with the fluid from the oedema. If the body is moved or jolted, this fluid can come out through the nostrils. It is precisely this kind of stain that forms the central group of stains on the sudarium. ...The most striking thing about all the stains is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud. The first fact that confirms the relationship between the two cloths is that the blood on each belongs to the same group, AB. If the blood or each cloth belonged to a different group, there would be no sense in pursuing the comparative investigation, and little meaning in any further points of coincidence. This test is the starting point for all the others, and the results are positive. Blood of the group AB is also very common in the Middle East and rare in Europe. ... The length of the nose which produced this stain has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches, which is exactly the same as the length of the nose on the Shroud. ... This, however, is not the only point of coincidence between the nasal areas on the two cloths. Both of them, especially the Shroud, contain a high concentration of ground particles and dust in this area. When a man was being led to the place of crucifixion, he had to carry the horizontal bar of the cross, which was probably tied to his outstretched arms and placed across the back of his neck. This meant that whenever he fell, which would have been often after being whipped and with such a weight to carry, he could not protect his face from the impact of the fall. This also explains why this nose was swollen, slightly displaced and bleeding. Perhaps the most obvious fit when the stains on the sudarium are placed over the image of the face on the Shroud, is that are placed over the image of the face on the Shroud, is that of the beard; the match is perfect. This shows that the sudarium, possibly by being gently pressed onto the face, was also used to clean the blood and other fluids that had collected in the beard. Stain number 6 is also evident on all four faces of the sudarium. If stain 13 is placed over the nose of the image on the Shroud, stain 6 is seen to proceed from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the shroud, but its existence has been confirmed by Dr John Jackson, who is well known for his studies on the Shroud using the VP-8 image analyser. Using the VP-8 and photo-enhancements, Dr Jackson has shown that the same stain is present on the Shroud, and the shape of the stain coincides perfectly with the one on the sudarium. The gap between the blood coming out of the right hand side of the mouth and the stain on the beard is mapped as number 18. This gap closes as the stains get progressively more extensive on faces 1, 2, 3 and 4 while at the same time they are less intense. Stain number 12 corresponds to the eyebrows of the face on the Shroud. As with the beard, this facial hair would have retained blood and this would have produced the stains on the sudarium when it was placed on Jesus' face. There is also blood on the forehead, which forms stain number 10 on the sudarium. ... There are smaller blood stains on the left of the reverse side of the cloth, the side that was in direct contact with Jesus's face. It would seem that this part of the sudarium was in contact with the back of Jesus' head. These stains too coincide with those on the Shroud. The image of the back of the man on the Shroud is covered with wounds from the scourging he received before being crucified. The wounds on the man's back are obviously not reproduced on the sudarium, as this had no contact with it. However, there are thick bloodstains on the nape of the man's neck, showing the depth and extent of the wounds produced by the crown of thorns. This crown was probably not a circle, as traditional Christian art represents, but a kind of cap covering the whole head. The thorns were probably of the species ziziphus vulgaris, a long, hard and sharp thorn which would produce deep and painful wounds. The stains on the back of the man's neck on the Shroud correspond exactly to those on the sudarium ... Dr Alan Whanger has studied the points of coincidence and relationship between the Shroud and hundreds of Byzantine paintings and representations of Christ, even using coins, from the sixth and seventh centuries. This was done using a system called Polarised Image Overlay Technique. ... Dr Whanger applied the same image overlay technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and blood stains on the Shroud. Even he was surprised at the results. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion, according to this highly respected scientist, is that the sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud. If this is so, and taking into account that it is impossible to deny that the sudarium has been in Oviedo since 1075, it casts a great shadow of doubt over the results of the Shroud's carbon dating." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.22-23,27-30,32. Emphasis original)

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Dinosaur 'feathers' are no such thing

Dinosaur 'feathers' are no such thing, ABC/AFP, 23 May 2007 ...

[Above: The caption says: "The first feathered dinosaur fossil found in China - Sinosauropteryx. The feathers can be seen in the dark line running along the specimen's back," American Museum of Natural History]

The theory that dinosaurs gave rise to birds has been dealt a blow by palaeontologists who have examined critical evidence from a Chinese fossil. The discoverers of the turkey-sized dinosaur Sinosauropteryx say it would have had primitive feathers, supporting the bird-from-dinosaurs theory. But the latest research says these 'proto-feathers' are really frilly structures on the creature's back. Researchers led by South African academic Professor Theagarten Lingham-Soliar at the University of KwaZulu-Natal publish their study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

The debate focuses on Sinosauropteryx, a fossil found in 1994 by a farmer in Liaoning province, northeastern China. This region is a treasure trove of the Early Cretaceous period some 130 million years ago. The long-tailed, meat-eating dinosaur was covered with a down of fibres that its Chinese researchers said were primitive feathers. Although the 'feathers' were clearly not capable of flight, their existence dramatically supported a theory first aired in the 1970s that birds evolved from dinosaurs. As a result, a once-outlandish notion has become the mainstream concept for the ascent of Aves, as birds are classified.

But when researchers examined a recently discovered specimen of Sinosauropteryx, also from Liaoning, they came to very different conclusions. When they examined the fossil under a high-powered microscope, the researchers said the two-branched structures, called rachis with barbs, are really the remains of a frill of collagen fibres that ran down the dinosaur's back from head to tail. "The fibres show a striking similarity to the structure and levels of organisation of dermal collagen," the kind of tough elastic strands found on the skin of sharks and reptiles today, the investigators say. The fibres have an unusual beaded structure, but this most likely was caused by a natural twisting of these strands, and a clumping together caused by dehydration, when the dinosaur died and its tissues started to dry. The tough fibres could have been either a form of armour to protect the small dinosaur from predators, or perhaps had a structural use, by stiffening its tail.

The first known bird is Archaeopteryx, which lived around 150 million years ago. What is missing are the links between Archaeopteryx and other species that would show how it evolved. But the fossil record is frustratingly small and incomplete and this is why debate has been so fierce.

The birds-from-dinosaur theory is based on the idea that small, specialised theropod dinosaurs gained an advantage by developing plant-eating habits, growing feathers to keep warm and taking to the trees for safety. From there, it was a relatively small step for these carnivorous, bipedal dinosaurs with three-toed feet to developing gliding skills and then the ability to fly.

Lingham-Soliar's team does not take issue with the theory itself. But they are dismayed by what they see as a reckless leap to the conclusion that Sinosauropteryx had the all-important proto-feathers, even though this dinosaur was phylogenetically far removed from Archaeopteryx. The evidence in support of the primitive feathers lacked serious investigation, Lingham-Soliar says. "There is not a single close-up representation of the integumental structure alleged to be a proto-feather," Lingham-Soliar says. Given that the evolution of the feather is a pivotal moment in the history of life, he says "scientific rigour is called for". [See also: Dinosaurs link to birds is shot down (The Australian); Feathered dinosaur finding won't fly, say scientists (CBC); Feathers fly over cornerstone fossil (Independent Online); Feathers fly over key evidence in the rise of dino-birds (PhysOrg.com) & Paleontologists shoot down dinosaur bird theory (NEWS.com.au).

So Sinosauropteryx the "feathered dinosaur" joins the list of "nearly all ... evolutionary stories" that "have now been `debunked':

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been `debunked'. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive." (Ager, D.V., 'The nature of the fossil record," Presidential Address delivered 5 March 1976, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p.131-135, p.132)

I remember when the discovery of Sinosauropteryx was first reported in 1998 and, although I had accepted universal common ancestry (but not evolution) , and therefore that birds and reptiles (not necessarily dinosaurs) shared a common ancestor, I have always been sceptical of these Chinese "feathered dinosaur" claims, regarding them as the paleontological equivalent of early astronomers seeing canals on Mars, i.e. what they want to be there. See my comments in previous posts of 24-Sep-05; 25-Oct-05; 01-Mar-06; 16-Mar-06 & 07-May-06.

While no doubt some (if not most) creationist/IDists will hail this as evidence that birds and dinosaurs are not related at all, that will be a misunderstanding of the evidence and what is being claimed by the authors of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B article, which is that these structures are not "protofeathers," and therefore these are not "feathered dinosaurs," and they are not evidence that birds are directly descended from these Chinese theropod dinosaurs (and presumably any theropod dinosaurs, if not any dinosaurs at all), but being reptiles they still share a common ancestor with birds.

Nevertheless, this is going to be very embarrassing for those Darwinists like Mark Norell who have pushed these "feathered dinosaur" claims in the media; and the gullible journalists who accepted those claims uncritically, and will further cause the public to distrust confident-sounding claims about evolution!

It will also probably cause a major shake-up in paleontology because a lot of time, energy and, above all prestige, has been invested in this Chinese "feathered dinosaur" theory, despite the obvious fact that, as the late Ernst Mayr (who was an ornithologist) pointed out, the "bipedal dinosaurs that are most birdlike occurred in the later Cretaceous, some 70-100 million years ago, while Archaeopteryx, the oldest known fossil bird, lived 145 million years ago" (i.e. ~45 million years earlier) and "Archaeopteryx has so many advanced avian characters that the origin of birds must be placed considerably earlier than the late Jurassic, perhaps in the Triassic":

"The greatest current controversy in phylogeny will perhaps be settled by invoking parallelophyly; it concerns the origin of birds. There is no argument over the conclusion that birds derived from the archosaurian lineage of the diapsid reptiles. But when this happened is the argument. As far back as the 1860s, T.H. Huxley called attention to the remarkable similarity of the avian skeleton to that of certain reptiles and concluded that the birds had descended from dinosaurs. Later, other authors postulated a much earlier origin, but recently the dinosaur origin has been proclaimed by the cladists with such vigor that at present it seems to be the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of birds. Indeed, the similarity of the pelvis and legs between birds and certain bipedal dinosaurs is astonishingly close ... However, the arguments of their opponents are also very persuasive. The fossil chronology seems to be in conflict with the dinosaur theory. The particular bipedal dinosaurs that are most birdlike occurred in the later Cretaceous, some 70-100 million years ago, while Archaeopteryx, the oldest known fossil bird, lived 145 million years ago. Archaeopteryx has so many advanced avian characters that the origin of birds must be placed considerably earlier than the late Jurassic, perhaps in the Triassic, but no birdlike dinosaurs are known from that period. Furthermore, the digits in the dinosaurian hand are 2, 3, 4 while in the avian hand they are l, 2, 3. Also, the anterior extremities of the birdlike dinosaurs are very much reduced and in no way preadapted to become wings. It is quite inconceivable how they could have possibly shifted to flight. These are only a few of the numerous facts in conflict with a Cretaceous origin of birds from a dinosaurian ancestry. The argument will probably not be fully settled until more Triassic fossils are found." (Mayr, E.W., "What Evolution Is," Basic Books: New York NY, 2001, pp.227-227. Emphasis original).

The problem, as ID biologist Jonathan Wells pointed out in his book, "Icons of Evolution" (2000), is the over-emphasis on "cladistics" where "character comparisons take precedence over everything else" and "The order in which animals appear in the fossil record also becomes secondary or irrelevant":

"In cladistics, character comparisons take precedence over everything else. `The anatomical details or characters,' writes paleontologist Pat Shipman, `constitute the evidence, which ultimately adds up to a certainty approaching proof' [Shipman, P., "Taking Wing: Archaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird Flight," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, p.33] of evolutionary relationships. Other factors are discounted. For example, physical difficulties inherent in the `ground up' theory of the origin of flight are unimportant; what matters is that birds are anatomically more similar to two-legged running dinosaurs than to four-legged climbing reptiles. To a `cladist' (someone who uses the cladistic method), the debate over the origin of flight is secondary, if not irrelevant. The order in which animals appear in the fossil record also becomes secondary or irrelevant. If evolutionary relationships are inferred solely on the basis of character comparisons, an animal can be the descendant of another even if the supposed ancestor doesn't appear until millions of years later. The fossil record is simply re-arranged to fit the results of cladistic analysis. ... Applying cladistics to the evolution of birds leads to the conclusion that the ancestor of Archaeopteryx was a two-legged dinosaur. Ironically, once cladistics took over and similarity became the only criterion for relationships, paleontologists found that the most likely candidates for the ancestor of Archaeopteryx lived tens of millions of years later. .... According to cladists, the animals with the right features were bird-like dinosaurs that lived in the Cretaceous period, long after Archaeopteryx had become extinct. But then, in order to make bird-like dinosaurs the ancestors of birds, the fossil evidence must be re-arranged. ... The obvious objection that an animal cannot be older than its ancestor is discounted by assuming that the ancestral form must have been there before its descendant, but its fossil remains cannot be found. In other words, advocates of cladistics cite the imperfection of the geological record the very same reason Darwin gave for the troubling absence of transitional forms. As a result, however, the gaps in the fossil record become more pronounced than ever before. Immense stretches of time are left with no fossil evidence to support cladistic phylogenies. Critics of cladistic methodology argue that the features on which cladists base their analyses may have evolved independently, and don't necessarily point to common ancestry. Critics also argue that although the fossil record is incomplete, it is not as incomplete as cladistic analyses imply. Cladists disagree, and the result has been a raging controversy." (Wells, J., "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, pp.119-120. Emphasis in original)

Then the problem in turn for cladistics is convergence or homoplasy, "when characters are similar, but are not derived from a common ancestor." If such homoplastic characters are fed into a cladistic computer system, the cladogram generated will look authoritative but it will in fact be another case of GIGO (garbage-in-garbage-out)! But if characters can be so similar that they fool some of the world's leading paleontologists, yet that close similarity may not be due to direct inheritance from a common ancestor, then how could evolutionists ever be sure that any one fossil is directly descended from another?

So now that these Chinese "feathered dinosaurs" (and presumably all theropod dinosaurs, if not all dinosaurs) are not ancestral to birds, apart from correcting all those museum exhibits, books, journals, articles and websites, paleontologists will have to look again for "the origin of birds ... considerably earlier than the late Jurassic [~160-145 mya], perhaps in the Triassic [~250-200 mya], but no birdlike dinosaurs are known from that period!"

That is, if Darwinism is true, and the first bird was not supernaturally progressively mediately created, in a (or a series of) "leap[s] across genetic hyperspace":

"1. Could the human eye have arisen directly from no eye at all, in single step? ... The answer to Question 1 is clearly a decisive no [naturalistically] . The odds against a `yes' answer for questions like Question 1 are many billions of times greater than the number of atoms in the universe. It would need a gigantic and vanishingly improbable leap across genetic hyperspace." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, p.77. Emphasis original).

"There is another mathematical space filled, not with nine-gened biomorphs but with flesh and blood animals made of billions of cells, each containing tens of thousands of genes. This is not biomorph space but real genetic space. The actual animals that have ever lived on Earth are a tiny subset of the theoretical animals that could exist. These real animals are the products of a very small number of evolutionary trajectories through genetic space. The vast majority of theoretical trajectories through animal space give rise to impossible monsters. Real animals are dotted around here and there among the hypothetical monsters, each perched in its own unique place in genetic hyperspace. Each real animal is surrounded by a little cluster of neighbours, most of whom have never existed, but a few of whom are its ancestors, its descendants and its cousins. Sitting somewhere in this huge mathematical space are humans and hyenas, amoebas and aardvarks, flatworms and squids, dodos and dinosaurs. In theory, if we were skilled enough at genetic engineering, we could move from any point in animal space to any other point. From any starting point we could move through the maze in such a way as to recreate the dodo, the tyrannosaur and trilobites. If only we knew which genes to tinker with, which bits of chromosome to duplicate, invert or delete. I doubt if we shall ever know enough to do it, but these dear dead creatures are lurking there forever in their private corners of that huge genetic hypervolume, waiting to be found if we but had the knowledge to navigate the right course through the maze." (Dawkins, 1986, p.73) .

from a reptilian (or even a dinosaurian) ancestor!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Leviticus 9:23-24. 23Moses and Aaron then went into the Tent of Meeting. When they came out, they blessed the people; and the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people. 24Fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell facedown.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #5: Pollen on the Shroud from plants native only to the Middle East and Turkey

Bogus: Shroud of Turin, The Conservative Voice, April 08, 2007, Grant Swank ... But that "bearded face" on that particular cloth did not belong to Jesus of Nazareth. ... Continued from part #4.

[Above: Electron micrograph of pollen grains of Gundelia tournefortii, which grows only in Israel, Jordan and Syria, yet is by far the most common pollen species found on the Shroud of Turin, Flora of the Shroud of Turin, Prof. Avinoam Danin]

Swank is welcome to his opinion, even though, as we saw in part #1, it is based on a failure to consider all the evidence, compounded by a lack of logic.

And as we shall see, the evidence overwhelmingly points to that "bearded face" on "that particular cloth," the Shroud of Turin, did "belong to Jesus of Nazareth"!

That evidence (apart from the previously mentioned problems of radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in parts #2, #3 and #4) includes:

  1. Pollen on the Shroud from plants native only to the Middle East and Turkey (this part #5);

  2. Plants on the Shroud native to in and around Israel (part #6);

  3. Dirt on the feet of the man on the Shroud matches Jerusalem's tombs (part #7);

  4. Bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are real blood (part #8);

  5. Bloodstains on the Shroud are type AB, contain DNA and are anatomically perfect (part #9);

  6. The Shroud's blood and pollen closely matches the Sudarium of Oviedo's (part #10 - hereafter on my The Shroud of Turin blog);

  7. Coin images minted by Pontius Pilate between 29 and 32 AD cover the eyes of the man on Shroud;

  8. A second face on the Shroud;

  9. Pre-14th century art based on the Shroud;

  10. Other pre-14th century historical evidence of the Shroud;

  11. The Edessa link between the Shroud and Jesus;

  12. Consistency between the Bible and the Shroud; and

  13. Failure of all alternative explanations of the Shroud.

Why I am spending so much time on this (apart from the fact that I find it fascinating!), is that if the Shroud of Turin really is the very burial sheet of Jesus (which on all the evidence, it is), then it is further proof that Christianity is true and Naturalism is false!

Here now is the evidence on 1. above, that pollen on the Shroud is from plants native only to the Middle East and Turkey.

The late "Dr. Max Frei, a noted Swiss criminologist" who was "a botanist by training," in 1973 took samples of "dust particles" from the Shroud and "under the microscope" he "identified ...

[Right: Dr. Max Frei collecting pollen from the Shroud in 1978, Shroud of Turin website]

fragments from hairs and fibers of plants, spores from bacteria and nonflowering plants such as mosses and fungi, and pollen grains from flowering plants." And, "Frei realized that identification of the plants from which the pollen on the Shroud had been derived could lead to important deductions about the geographical regions in which the Shroud had been." In particular, since "the Shroud had never been outside the western Mediterranean region in which it is known to have been kept since the fourteenth century," any pollen found on the Shroud that is unique to "other regions" then "the identification of such regions" would provide "important pointers to the Shroud's early history" (my emphasis):

"A few weeks before the Shroud was shown on television in 1973, three experts had been invited by Monsignor Caramello to study the photographs of the Shroud taken by Judica-Cordiglia in 1969 and to give their opinion on whether the photographs were true pictures of the structure of the linen and the markings on it. One of these was Dr. Max Frei, a noted Swiss criminologist, chosen because he had published an article on the faking of photographs in 1955. ... Frei has established an international reputation for himself by the analysis of microscopic substances. From 1948 until his retirement in 1972, Frei was head of the Zurich Police Scientific Laboratory and worked on the analysis of many important crimes and accidents ... It was on October 4, 1973, during his work notarizing the photographs of the Shroud taken by Cordiglia in 1969, that Frei noticed that the surface of the cloth was covered with minute dust particles. He therefore asked for permission to remove some of the particles for analysis, and Cardinal Pellegrino gave his permission. On the night of November 23, with the Shroud still hanging vertically in the frame used for the television exposition, Frei took his samples from the bottom zone to the left and right, and from the side strip. His method was absurdly simple: He pressed small pieces of clean adhesive tape onto the surface of the linen, then sealed these into plastic envelopes and put them into the modest satchel that he carries constantly with him. ... Back in his laboratory in Zurich, Frei surveyed the dust he had collected under the microscope. His trained eye immediately identified mineral particles, fragments from hairs and fibers of plants, spores from bacteria and nonflowering plants such as mosses and fungi, and pollen grains from flowering plants-all consistent with the sort of microscopic debris the Shroud could be expected to have accumulated over the centuries. Being chiefly a botanist by training, Frei found the pollen to be of the greatest interest. As he was aware, pollen grains have an extremely resistant outer wall, the exine. Although so small as to be virtually invisible to the naked eye, these grains can and do retain their physical characteristics for literally hundreds of millions of years, being immune to almost any form of destruction. As Frei was also aware, when viewed under the electron microscope pollen grains vary so considerably in physical characteristics that, thanks to careful classification of the different types over the years, it is possible to identify with certainty the precise genus of plant from which any grain has been derived. Frei realized that identification of the plants from which the pollen on the Shroud had been derived could lead to important deductions about the geographical regions in which the Shroud had been. On the one hand, it might confirm that the Shroud had never been outside the western Mediterranean region in which it is known to have been kept since the fourteenth century. On the other, it might reveal that the Shroud had at some stage been in other regions, the identification of such regions obviously providing important pointers to the Shroud's early history." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.61-62)

Eventually, "Frei had a breakthrough" in identifying three "desert varieties of Tamarix, Suaeda and Artemisia" which are "halophytes, plants common to the desert regions around the Jordan Valley and ... the Dead Sea" and "are of great diagnostic value" since such "desert plants are missing in all the other countries where the Shroud is believed to have been exposed to the open air":

"During 1974 and 1975 ... Frei carefully examined each pollen grain he had removed from the Shroud, and cross-matched it against his files of known varieties. It was an incredibly delicate task. Each grain has a different appearance according to the aspect from which it is viewed, there being an equator and poles just like the earth, and the manipulation of such minute samples requires great dexterity even with special instruments.... One of the complications of the method is that many plants are common to virtually all areas in which the Shroud might have been kept in the course of its history. Another complication is that plants that originally had one specific regional derivation are today found all over the globe. A typical example of this is the famous cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani). Frei actually found pollen from this on the Shroud, theoretically most valuable evidence for the Shroud's provenance in Palestine. But it cannot be regarded as specific. The same species of cedar has been planted in parks and gardens throughout the whole Mediterranean area during the last few centuries. Fortunately, Frei had a breakthrough. As he analyzed the grains one by one, he came upon some that he could identify with certainty and that he realized had to be significant. They were from typical halophytes, plants common to the desert regions around the Jordan Valley and unique in one respect: They are specifically adapted to live in a soil with a high content of sodium chloride, such as is found almost exclusively around the Dead Sea. Among these were desert varieties of Tamarix, Suaeda, and Artemisia. In Frei's own words: `These plants are of great diagnostic value for our geographical studies as identical desert plants are missing in all the other countries where the Shroud is believed to have been exposed to the open air. Consequently, a forgery, produced somewhere in France during the Middle Ages, in a country lacking these typical halophytes, could not contain such characteristic pollen grains from the desert regions of Palestine.' [Frei, M., Report to film producer David Rolfe, January 1977]" (Wilson, 1978, pp.62-63. Emphasis original)

It is highly significant that in the Flora of Israel online database, the genus Tamarix has five species: T. aphylla, T. chinensis, T. jordanis, T. nilotica and T. tetragyna; the genus Suaeda has six species: S. aegyptiaca, S. asphaltica, S. monoica, S. palaestina, S. splendens and S. vera; and the genus Artemisia also has five species: A. arborescens, A. jordanica, A. judaica, A. monosperma and A. sieberi!

In fact, as at 1981, of the "forty-nine different plants" that Frei identified the pollen of on the Shroud, "thirty-three" (i.e. 67%) "of these plants grow only in Palestine, the southern steppes of Turkey, or the area of Istanbul" and yet "The Shroud has never left Europe since its appearance in Lirey in 1357" (my emphasis):

"In 1973, Max Frei, a Swiss criminologist, was asked to authenticate the photographs taken of the Shroud in 1969. Frei, a botanist by training, noticed pollen spores on the cloth and received permission to sample them. Over the next few months, Frei laboriously separated the different spores, photographed them, and matched them to their plants by reference to botanical texts and catalogues. Frei identified spores from forty-nine different plants. Some of these plants grow in Europe, hardly a surprise since the Shroud has often been exposed to the open air in France and Italy, and would have picked up local air-borne pollen spores. But thirty-three of these plants grow only in Palestine, the southern steppes of Turkey, or the area of Istanbul. The Shroud has never left Europe since its appearance in Lirey in 1357. Frei's meticulous work strongly indicates that the Shroud was exposed to the open air in Palestine and Turkey at some point in its history-just as Wilson's Mandylion-Shroud theory suggests. Frei indicated that the overlay of the pollen grains convinced him that the Shroud has a first-century origin, although this cannot be absolutely proven by the pollen analysis." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.26).

Indeed, "before his death in early 1983, "Frei managed to identify pollens from no fewer than fifty-eight varieties of plant," and of these, a "substantial number of pollens derive from steppe plants most commonly found in eastern Turkey" and "seven plants characteristic of Near Eastern rocky hills" which means "that the Shroud has been in a region typical of, if not identical with, the terrain in which the historical Jesus moved," "in the very region it has to have been if it wrapped the body of Jesus" (my emphasis):

"In 1973, when the Shroud was brought out for a brief examination by a predominantly Italian group of scientists, Swiss criminologist Dr. Max Frei dabbed strips of sticky tape onto the cloth's surface in an endeavor to obtain samples of its dust, dust that he anticipated would include pollen grains. The special interest of pollen grains is that they have an exceptionally hard outer shell, the exine, which can last literally millions of years. What is very important is that this shell differs markedly in appearance according to the type of plant it has come from, enabling anyone analyzing pollen dust on, say, a murder suspect's clothing, to tell in what type of surroundings the garment has been worn. As recognized by Dr. Max Frei, this technique has a special value in respect of the Shroud. If the Shroud really was forged in France in the fourteenth century, then identification of exclusively French and Italian pollens would effectively confirm this. If, however, pollen grains from quite different regions were discovered, then these could be a powerful aid to understanding the cloth's earlier origins. Handling pollens for microscopic examination is a delicate and time-consuming business, but, from the samples he took in 1973 and a further batch in 1978, Frei managed to identify pollens from no fewer than fifty-eight varieties of plant, before his death in early 1983. The varieties of plant told their own striking story of the markedly differing geographical regions with which the Shroud had historically been associated, as is quite evident from the chart ... Careful study of the table reveals, as might be expected, a substantial number of plant species that grow widely in France, Italy, and the general Mediterranean area. If pollens of these species alone had been found, there would be no justification for believing the Shroud to have been kept anywhere other than the places it is known to have been since the 1350s. In the case of one pollen, Oryza sativa, or rice, it is even possible, with some confidence, to name the specific town, Vercelli, where the Shroud is historically known to have been exhibited in 1494 and 1560, is Europe's principal rice-growing center. But as is also evident from the list, a similarly substantial number of pollens derive from steppe plants most commonly found in eastern Turkey. Two, Atraphaxis spinosa and Prunus spartioides, are virtually specific to this, while a further group, but most notably Epimedium pubigerum, suggest some historical association with Istanbul, the former Constantinople. ... Desert plants, most notably halophytes, specially adapted to grow in the exceptionally salty soil around the Dead Sea, also feature prominently in the list, along with no fewer than seven plants characteristic of Near Eastern rocky hills and other high places. It is obvious that the Shroud has been in a region typical of, if not identical with, the terrain in which the historical Jesus moved. But by far the greatest significance of the table is the preponderance of plants typical of, and in some cases effectively exclusive to, the environs of Jerusalem. The European representation is outweighed, the only reasonable inference being that it was somewhere in the Jerusalem region that the Shroud received its most prolonged exposure to the open air, pollens of course having less opportunity to migrate to the cloth as it hung in European churches or lay locked in their reliquaries. As Frei argued, the Shroud therefore must have once been in the very region it has to have been if it wrapped the body of Jesus: the land we today call Israel." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, pp.38,43)

That is, "at some time in its history, the Shroud was exposed to the open air in Palestine and Turkey-precisely where it should have been if it and the Mandylion cloth are, in fact, one and the same" and "It is certainly doubtful that a medieval forger could have known, let alone produced, a cloth with just the right pollen spread" (my emphasis):

"Pollen Perhaps the most significant work on the identification and origin of pollen on the Shroud was done by the late Dr. Max Frei, who founded the scientific department of the Zurich Police and whose doctoral thesis was on the flora of Sicily. Dr. Frei was present with STURP during the 1978 studies, primarily because he had previously identified key pollens that definitely placed the Shroud in both Palestine and Turkey at some time in the past. Though many pollens on the Shroud could be attributed to those areas, such as in the famous cedars of Lebanon, Frei only selected those pollens that are still unique to each specific area. In my [Stevenson's] opinion, the significance of the pollens cannot be overestimated. For example, certain desert halophytes that he found on the Shroud led Dr. Frei to say: `These plants are of great diagnostic value for our geographical studies as identical plants are missing in all other countries where the Shroud has been exposed to the open air. Consequently a forgery, produced somewhere in France during the Middle Ages, in a country lacking these typical halophytes, could not contain such characteristic pollen grains from the desert regions of Palestine.' [Frei, M., Report to film producer David Rolfe, January 1977] The pollen analysis confirmed in scientific detail the history that Ian Wilson had developed from scattered references and artistic comparisons. According to Wilson, at some time in its history, the Shroud was exposed to the open air in Palestine and Turkey-precisely where it should have been if it and the Mandylion cloth are, in fact, one and the same. It is certainly doubtful that a medieval forger could have known, let alone produced, a cloth with just the right pollen spread." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, p.63. Emphasis original).

After his death, Frei's "entire collection of Shroud sticky tapes, along with his unpublished manuscript, passed to the United States" with "Shroud researcher Paul Maloney, then acting as the collection's custodian" and "at a meeting at the Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia," even Shroud arch-critic "Dr Walter McCrone ... acknowledged that quantities of pollen grains ... were undeniably present on these tapes":

"Unruffled, Frei kept up a friendly correspondence with me, making clear that his work with the tiny pollen grains demanded much time and patience, and that, when his researches were complete, he had every intention of publishing them in the form of a fully definitive scientific report. Sadly, however, he was never able to achieve this; in January 1983 he died of a sudden heart attack. Five and a half years later ... his entire collection of Shroud sticky tapes, along with his unpublished manuscript, passed to the United States ... On 23 July 1988 examples from this tape collection were formally viewed on video-linked microscopes at a meeting at the Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia. At this meeting Dr Walter McCrone, who was specially invited to attend, acknowledged that quantities of pollen grains, whatever their age and geographical derivation, were undeniably present on these tapes. The Shroud researcher Paul Maloney, then acting as the collection's custodian, later reported on the preliminary statistical analysis that he had personally conducted: `Eighty-eight pollen grains were counted in approximately 2 square centimetres on a dorsal `sidestrip' tape ... A hundred and sixty-three grains Were counted on the same size area on a tape from the left arm, but an astounding circa 300 grains were counted on a tape taken from near the face in a comparative size area. [Maloney, P., "The Current Status of Pollen research and Prospects for the Future," at "Symposium Scientifique International sur le Linceul de Turin," Paris, 7-8 September 1989]" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.82).

Later, "the care of Frei's sticky tape collection fell to Shroud researcher Dr Alan Whanger" who has introduced one of Israel's leading botanists, Prof. Avinoam Danin, to the Shroud and he has confirmed the presence on the Shroud of pollen from "Gundelia tournefortii" and "Zygophyllum dumosum," the former's "distribution is distinctively Middle Eastern" and the latter being "an endemic [unique to] plant of Jordan, Israel and Simai" which is "near proof positive that the Shroud must have been in the land of Israel at some time in its history" and "was evidence hugely supportive of the cloth's authenticity" (my emphasis):

"As a further complication, and partly as a result of Paul Maloney's indisposition, the care of Frei's sticky tape collection fell to Shroud researcher Dr Alan Whanger. ... Judith and I were also introduced to the computer-linked microscope in which Alan Whanger has invested in order to study these tapes. For demonstration purposes one of Frei's Shroud tapes was placed under the microscope, and the Whangers and Philip Dayvault encouraged me to explore its non-lead areas for the pollen grains it bore. For me the immediate surprise was to find just what a complete universe of such debris can exist on one insignificant-looking piece of sticky tape. It was possible to travel across the tape for what seemed miles, viewing it both through the microscope and on the linked computer-screen. ...Then at last there appeared a circular-shaped pollen grain, quite unmistakable, and large as pollen grains go. As was immediately revealed by cross-comparison with images of pollen grains stored in the Whanger computer, this was Gundelia tournefortii, a plant that Max Frei had already identified on the Shroud, and which Danin had reported as present on the Shroud in abundance pollenwise, and also in image form. Since Gundelia's pollen is normally insect-borne, Dr Uri Baruch, an Israel Antiquities Authority palynologist, had seriously doubted Danin's claims, having had personal experience of collecting all too few grains of this type during field trips to various sites in the Judaean Mountains and Judaean Desert. Because of this scepticism Baruch, like ourselves, had visited Whanger's basement some eighteen months earlier. From this he satisfied himself that Gundelia pollen grains are numerous on the Frei tapes, and therefore that whole flowers from Jerusalem's environs must have been directly laid on the Shroud's surface. In which regard, the highly significant feature of Gundelia tournefortii, as both Danin and Baruch emphasise, [Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis MO, 1999] is that, exactly as in the case of Zygophyllum dumosum, it does not grow in Europe. Its distribution is distinctively Middle Eastern, extending from western Turkey through Israel, Syria and northern Iraq and Iran, with just some spillage into the southernmost fringes of the former Soviet Union. Whatever might be the truth concerning the plant images, therefore, in this basement room in North Carolina I was looking at near proof positive that the Shroud must have been in the land of Israel at some time in its history. It was evidence hugely supportive of the cloth's authenticity, and thereby rendered as so much waste paper all the unworthy allegations against Dr Max Frei." (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.82,88).

What's more, "Gundelia ... comprised nearly one-third of the pollens found and `logged' on the Frei sticky tapes" and "an extraordinary 44 per cent of all those so far classified," which means that "Holy Land or Middle Eastern pollens ... represent in fact a quite disproportionately huge amount" of those on the Shroud. And finally, being not "wind-pollinated" someone would have to have "deliberately laid flowering Gundelia tournefortii plants on" the Shroud and since it only flowers "between March and May," this had to be "the very period of the year within which Jesus' Passover-linked crucifixion occurred" (my emphasis)!:

"Yet, in the case of Gundelia, even this finding was far from all. For, as Whanger's and Danin's quantitative study of the pollen representation has revealed, among the by no means exhaustive 313 pollen grains that they had analysed as part of their programme, no fewer than ninety-one were identifiable as Gundelia; the plant comprised nearly one-third of the pollens found and `logged' on the Frei sticky tapes, and an extraordinary 44 per cent of all those so far classified. One immediate corollary of this is that very far from Holy Land or Middle Eastern pollens being an insignificant proportion of all those present on the Shroud, they represent in fact a quite disproportionately huge amount. It is as if the six hundred years that the Shroud has definitely been in Europe have counted for very little in terms of pollen representation. In the same context another important fact concerning Gundelia tournefortii is that it is insect-rather than wind-pollinated. In the case of many plants this has meant that they are not represented on the Shroud. For instance, the mainly insect-pollinated olive, though widespread both in the Near East and in western Europe, has furnished not a single specimen in the Frei collection. This is because it would have required an insect to have been on an olive tree just before landing on the Shroud during one of its open-air expositions; a very rare chance indeed. So for Gundelia pollen to be so strongly represented has to mean either that a whole swarm of insects flew from Gundelia plants to land on the Shroud - highly unlikely - or that at some time some person or persons unknown deliberately laid flowering Gundelia tournefortii plants on it. ... But it is quite definite that whoever did this has to have done so somewhere within the Middle Eastern geographical area where the plant is known to grow, an area specifically including Jerusalem. They also have to have done so at a time of the year when Gundelia is known to bloom, and therefore produce pollen, a time that botanists quite independent of Danin [Kupicha, F.K., "Gundelia," in Davis, P.H., "Flora of Turkey," Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, Vol 5, 1984, pp.325-326] can narrow to between March and May. So is it mere coincidence that this was the very period of the year within which Jesus' Passover-linked crucifixion occurred?" (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.88-90)

So, if the 14th century forgery theory that, in the words of the `unbiased', `objective,' late Professor Edward Hall (the Oxford nuclear physicist who radiocarbon-dated the Shroud to 1260-1390 AD), that "Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it," was correct, then the forger would have to have "been wise enough to order a cloth from Palestine" and "then specified that the cloth must be exposed to open air in the areas of both Turkey and Istanbul," not to mention Israel, "to ensure the proper pollen spread " even though "the existence of pollen," (i.e. in the sense of "microgametophytes (pollen grains)" which "come in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and surface markings characteristic of the species"), "would not be discovered for at least another six hundred years" (my emphasis):

"With all these things in mind, how do we link the cloth of Edessa with the Shroud of Turin? One of the most incontrovertible pieces of supportive evidence for Wilson's theory is the pollen analysis of Max Frei ... It is especially convincing in that it strongly suggests both longevity and authenticity. After all, it is possible, though not very likely, that a forger could have been wise enough to order a cloth from Palestine, even that he might have ordered an `old' cloth from Palestine. But to suppose he could have ordered a cloth woven in the Middle East and then specified that the cloth must be exposed to open air in the areas of both Turkey and Istanbul to ensure the proper pollen spread boggles the imagination. Anyway, the existence of pollen would not be discovered for at least another six hundred years. Moreover, the historical path of the Shroud would not be reconstructed for nearly eight hundred years. Religious relics were forged frequently with no such sensitivity to detail. Many churches claimed ownership of the same relic, and in the case of the Shroud itself, notoriously poor copies were held in esteem in various places. To imagine that with this relic and only this relic there was sudden inspiration of heretofore unrecognized and unheralded genius is truly clutching at straws." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.77-78. Emphasis original).

Therefore, in the light of this pollen evidence alone (and remember it is only one out of many lines of evidence), it is not "people" who "continue to fight for the authenticity of the shroud" who are, in Prof. Hall's, words, "like the Flat Earth Society," but rather those like Prof. Hall, who "continue to fight" against "the authenticity of the shroud"!

Continued in part #6 with "Plants on the Shroud native to in and around Israel."

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Exodus 40:33-38. 33Then Moses set up the courtyard around the tabernacle and altar and put up the curtain at the entrance to the courtyard. And so Moses finished the work. 34Then the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 35Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting because the cloud had settled upon it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 36In all the travels of the Israelites, whenever the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle, they would set out; 37but if the cloud did not lift, they did not set out-until the day it lifted. 38So the cloud of the LORD was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel during all their travels.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Re: "If the universe is billions of years old ... how can it have been created in six days?"

AN

Thanks for your message. As is I usually do when I receive a private message on a creation, evolution or design topic,

[Above: The Creation Window, "A stunning and colourful interpretation of the Six Days of Creation," Chester Cathedral, England]

I am responding to my blog, CreationEvolutionDesign, after removing your private identifying information.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 4:41 AM
Subject: Enjoyed your blog

>Btw, the "six days" creation issue is often one of the first things non-theistic science folk offer in discussion.

Quite frankly, in my experience of 40+ years a Christian, I can only remember one person ever raising "the `six days' creation issue" with me in person, as a reason why they don't accept Christianity. He was a retired geologist who had worked in the coal industry, who could not accept that the Earth was ~6,000 years old. I told him that I (and most Christians I knew) interpreted the days of Genesis 1 non-literally (see below).

Even in my ~11 years (1994-2005) debating Creation vs Evolution on the Internet, "the `six days' creation issue" was rarely raised by non-Christians, as a reason to not accept Christianity. I assume that is because most non-Christians are aware that many (if not most) Christians take the days of Genesis 1 non-literally.

Indeed, Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse and evolutionary geneticist H. Allen Orr have respectively criticised leading atheist Darwinist Richard Dawkins for his failure to acknowledge in his writings that "at least since the time of Saint Augustine (400 A.D.) Christians have been interpreting the seven days of creation metaphorically" and "Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century":

"Also, I myself share just about every bit of Dawkins's nonbelief. ... It is true that Darwinism conflicts with the Book of Genesis taken literally, but at least since the time of Saint Augustine (400 A.D.) Christians have been interpreting the seven days of creation metaphorically. I would like to see Dawkins take Christianity as seriously as he undoubtedly expects Christianity to take Darwinism. I would also like to see him spell out fully the arguments as to the incompatibility of science (Darwinism especially) and religion (Christianity especially). So long as his understanding of Christianity remains at the sophomoric level, Dawkins does not deserve full attention." (Ruse, M.E., "Through a Glass, Darkly." Review of "A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love," by Richard Dawkins, Houghton Mifflin, 2003)

"Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins's work, I'm afraid that I'm among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur. ... The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. ... The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins's book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?)." (Orr, H.A., "A Mission to Convert." Review of "The God Delusion," by Richard Dawkins, Houghton Mifflin, 2006. The New York Review of Books, Vol. 54, No. 1, January 11, 2007)

>Here is a line of reasoning I tend to respond with that tends to shake or annoy them and open the door for larger conversation. Curious if you'd met anyone else with the interpretation:
>
>Q: "If the universe is billions of years old, scientifically speaking, how can it have been created in six days?"
>
>My A: "Clearly relativistic physics suggests that two frames of reference could exist such that time for one observer is six days, while the other observer experiences billions of years. True that the observer who experienced six days would need to be traveling near light speed, but we are generally talking about an entity which takes credit for inventing light. Can he not go his own speed limit?"

This sounds similar to Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder relativistic "time dilation" theory. If so, while it might have some value to "open the door for larger conversation," the facts is, as I posted on to my blog on 04-Nov-06, Schroeder's claim is false that "In terms of days and years and millennia, this stretching of the cosmic perception of time by a factor of a million million, the division of fifteen billion years by a million million reduces those fifteen billion years to six days":

"Since biblical time takes hold with the appearance of matter, the biblical clock starts at bohu, that instant just after the big bang when stable matter as we know it formed from energy. The age of all matter in the universe dates back to bohu, the moment of quark confinement. We know the temperature and hence the frequency of radiation energy in the universe at quark confinement. It is not a value extrapolated or estimated from conditions in the distant past or far out in space. It is measured right here on Earth in the most advanced physics laboratories and corresponds to a temperature approximately a million million times hotter than the current 3°K black of space. That radiant energy had a frequency a million million times greater than the radiation of today's cosmic background radiation. The radiation from that moment of quark confinement has been stretched a million-millionfold. Its redshift, z, as observed today is 1012. That stretching of the light waves has slowed the frequency of the cosmic clock-expanded the perceived time between ticks of that clock-by a million million. ... To measure the age of the universe, we look back in time. From our perspective using Earth-based clocks running at a rate determined by the conditions of today's Earth, we measure a fifteen-billion-year age. And that is correct for our local view. The Bible adopts this Earthly perspective, but only for times after Adam. The Bible's clock before Adam is not a clock tied to any one location. It is a clock that looks forward in time from the creation, encompassing the entire universe, a universal clock tuned to the cosmic radiation at the moment when matter formed. That cosmic timepiece, as observed today, ticks a million million times more slowly than at its inception. The million millionfold stretching of radiation since bohu caused that million-million-to-one ratio in this perception of time. This cosmic clock records the passage of one minute while we on Earth experience a million million minutes. The dinosaurs ruled the Earth for 120 million years, as measured by our perception of time. Those clocks are set by the decay of radioactive nuclides here on Earth and they are correct for our earthly system. But to know the cosmic time we must divide earth time by a million million. At this million-million-to-one ratio those 120 million Earth years lasted a mere hour.What does all this mean for the age of the universe? In terms of days and years and millennia, this stretching of the cosmic perception of time by a factor of a million million, the division of fifteen billion years by a million million reduces those fifteen billion years to six days!" (Schroeder, G.L., "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom," Broadway Books: New York NY, 1998, pp.57-58. Emphasis original)

That is because 15,000,000,000 years x 365 (ignoring that the solar day was meaningless when there was as yet no Sun or Earth and that the length of both the solar year and day would have changed considerably, e.g. "The original length of one day, when the Earth was new about 4.5 billion years ago, was about six hours .... It was 21.9 hours 620 million years ago"):

"The Earth's day has increased in length over time. The original length of one day, when the Earth was new about 4.5 billion years ago, was about six hours as determined by computer simulation. It was 21.9 hours 620 million years ago as recorded by rhythmites (alternating layers in sandstone). This phenomenon is due to tides raised by the Moon which slow Earth's rotation. Because of the way the second is defined, the mean length of a day is now about 86,400.002 seconds, and is increasing by about 1.7 milliseconds per century (an average over the last 2700 years). " ("Day," Wikipedia).

that makes 5,475,000,000,000 = 5.475 x 1012 days. Dividing that "by a million million" or 1012 = 5.475 days, which is not "six days" and in fact is nearer to five days.

And it only gets even worse for Schroeder's theory if the current best estimate of the age of the Universe of "13.7 billion ... years" is used :

"The age of the universe from the time of the Big Bang, according to current information provided by NASA's WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), is estimated to be about 13.7 billion (13.7 × 109) years, with a margin of error of about 1 % (± 200 million years)." ("Age of the universe," Wikipedia)

because then the number of days since the Big Bang is 13.7 billion x 365 = 5,000,500,000,000, which when divided by 1012 is 5.0005 days, which again is nearer to five days, not "six days". So both ways, Schroeder's theory fails!

Now you may not be referring to Schroeder's theory but are just making the point that "two frames of reference could exist such that time for one observer is six days, while the other observer experiences billions of years" (my emphasis). If so, it is empirically vacuous and therefore of no use in reconciling a literal interpretation of the six days of Genesis 1 with the scientifically determined age of the Universe, because the latter is not a vague "billions of years old" but is in fact "about 13.7 billion years" old.

That is, the question should be, "If the universe is" 13.7 "billions of years old, how can it have been created in six" literal 24-hour "days?" And then if one is claiming that the answer to that question is to be found in the "frames of reference" of "relativistic physics," one would have to answer it specifically as follows:

"relativistic physics suggests that two frames of reference" did "exist such that time for one observer" was six" literal 24-hour "days, while the other observer" did "experience ..." 13.7 "billions of years".

But then, it would have the same problem that Schroeder's time-dilation theory had. As soon as specific numbers are plugged into it, so that it is making an empirically testable claim that can be checked against the real world, then it fails!

A suggested better approach, if "non-theistic science folk offer in discussion" the "`six days' creation issue" is to point, as my "What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design"topic on "Genesis 1" does, that there are in fact a number of interpretative approaches to Genesis 1, including "Literalist, Gap theory, Day-age, Proclaimed days, Revealed days and Literary Framework":

"Genesis 1. Of the various main interpretative approaches to Genesis 1, including: Literalist, Gap theory, Day-age, Proclaimed days, Revealed days and Literary Framework; I consider the latter Literary Framework interpretation to be the best fit of the data of the text itself and the evidence from nature (general revelation). See my post of 31-Aug-06 for more details."

And as it says above, I personally consider the "Literary Framework interpretation to be the best fit of the data of the text itself and the evidence from nature (general revelation)."

The reason is, as I have also posted previously, on 22-Apr-07 (and before that on 31-Aug-06), I agree with the leading conservative evangelical theologian, J.I. Packer, that of the "four opinions, basically, about the seven days," "the so-called framework view, sometimes called the literary hypothesis ... is the only viable one. ... Because ... light appears on the first day while God only makes the sun and the moon and the stars on the fourth day" and "That fact alone ... shows that what we have here is not anything that can be called science, but rather an imaginative pattern of order replacing chaos" (my emphasis):

"There are four opinions, basically, about the seven days. The first is the literalist hypothesis which maintains that what we are reading about is twenty-four-hour days by our clocks; what we are being told in Genesis 1 is that the whole world came to be formed within what we would recognize as a working week. The hypothesis assumes that what we have in Genesis is descriptive prose, of newspaper type. The second view is that each of the days of the creation is an allegorical figure. What each of the references to the evening and the morning represent is a geological epoch, a very, very long period of time, hundreds of thousands of years at least. There has been much effort in this century by those who have understood the days this way to try and show that the order of things in Genesis 1 corresponds to the best scientific account that can be given of how specific items emerged and took their place in the order of the world. A witty Roman Catholic writer described this method of understanding as an attempt to raise Moses' credit by giving him a B.Sc. Those who take this 'concordist' view, as it is called, assume that part of the purpose of Genesis 1 was to give us scientific information about the stages by which things came to be. Third is what is called the revelation day theory, which takes the six evenings and mornings as signifying that creation was revealed in a story with six instalments, each instalment being given to the inspired writer on a separate day. After the first instalment had been given, the writer said there was evening and there was morning. That is a way of saying that God gave him the next bit of the story the next day. Fourth there is the so-called framework view, sometimes called the literary hypothesis. This view says that the six days, evening and morning, are part of what we may call a prose poem, that is a total pictorial presentation of the fact of creation in the form of a story of a week's work. Without going into the details of argument about these different views, let me tell you straightaway that in my judgement this fourth view is the only viable one. Why? Because in this account light appears on the first day while God only makes the sun and the moon and the stars on the fourth day. That fact alone, it seems to me, shows that what we have here is not anything that can be called science, but rather an imaginative pattern of order replacing chaos ..." (Packer, J.I., "Honouring the Written Word of God: The Collected Shorter Writings of James I. Packer," Vol. 3, Paternoster Press: Carlisle UK, 1999, p.179).

>God bless!

Thanks and same to you. Hope this has helped.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Exodus 34:1-4,27-28. 1The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain." 4So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. ... 27Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant-the Ten Commandments.