Basic HTML Version
22
William Farrand challenged the idea
that an uoprecedented catastrophe was
needed to account for this menagerie of
violent death.
What was his paleontological diag–
nosis? The animals died due to "natural
factors."
After chiding Sanderson coocerning
the veracity of sorne facts, Farrand goes
on to say, "Adding insult to injury,
Sanderson proceeds to fashion a fantas–
tic climatic catastrophe to explain his
conclusions" (William R. Farrand,
"Frozen Mammoths and Modero Geol–
ogy,"
Science,
Vol.
133,
No.
3455,
March
17, 1961,
p.
729).
The author may have had reason to
criticize sorne minar points of the
article. But Farrand's main bone of
contention was Sanderson's use of
unparalleled catastrophic events to solve
the Siberian riddle of mass death.
Like many scientists, Farrand felt
squeamish beforc such violence. He
would rather have seen the mammoths
cross the bar in a more graceful–
uniformitarian way.
What Price Uniformitarianism?
Farrand's contention reads like this:
"All the evidence now at hand sup–
ports the conclusions of previous work–
ers that
NO CATASTROPHIC
event was
responsible for the death and pres–
ervation of thc f rozen wool1y mam–
moths....
"There appears to be no nced to
assume the occurrence of a
cat.t~lrophe
... it is very unlikely that a catastrophic
congelation occurred in $iberia"
(!bid.,
pp. 733, 734).
What Farrand means by "all the
evidence" is obscure. Nor is it clear
to which "conclusions" of what "previ–
ous workers" he refers to.
Strangely enough, Farrand was silent
about the jumbled mass of bones in
Alaska. We have already seen the rcac–
tion of one "previous worker" and his
"conclusions."
Farrand
DOES ADMIT,
"$udden death
is indicated by the robust condition
of the animals and their full stomachs.
Asphyxiation is indicated ... by the
blood vessels of the hcad of a woolly
rhinoceros.
"The well-preserved specimens, with
food in their stornachs and between
The
PLAIN TRUTH
their teeth, must have died
SUDDENLY
probably from asphyxia resulting frorn
drowning in a lake or bog or from
bcing buried alive by a mudflow
oc
cave-in of a river bank"
(!bid.,
p.
734).
If
these were the
ONL
Y
rema ins
found, perhaps a uniformitarian expla–
nation might suffice. But how does one
explain the myriads of tangled animal
remains that Hibben, for example, saw
with his own eyes in Alaska?
T aken to Task by Colleagues
A number of individuals wrote to
Farrand - taking issue with his uni–
formitarian idea. One such letter was
published
111
a subsequeot issue of
Science:
"These fossils of the Siberian per–
mafrost present an insuperable diffi–
culty for a theory of slow, gradual
geology ... no gradualistic process can
result in thc preservation of tens of
thousands of tusks and whole individ–
uals, even if they died in the winter.
They must have been frozeo suddenly"
( Harold
E.
Lippman, "Frozen Mam–
moths,"
Science,
Vol.
137,
August
10,
1962,
p.
449).
The author of the above letter
referred to a number of workers, aghast
at the heaps of tusks found in Siberia.
For example, in the few decades preced–
ing
1899,
one report stated that about
20,000
tusks had been exported for the
ivory trade. These were
m
perfect
condition.
Farrand answered the letter by har–
king back to his original article. He also
hinted at the possibility of "natural"
catastrophe. But in lrue evolutionary
forrn, he denied that any truly extra–
ordinary series of apocalyptic paroxysms
could have occurred.
Why?
Because, said Farrand,
"It
is not logi–
cally sound to postulate a majar catas–
trophe on a scale far beyond anything
we have experienced"
(!bid.,
p.
451).
But why? Why should an earthjar–
ring series of events comparable to
Sanderson's be illogical?
Do the fossil facts warrant a con–
clusion such as Sanderson's?
If
so, why
should it be illogical? Why must the
"present is the
k,ey
to the past" dogma
be so sacrosanct ?
Aprii-May, 1970
In other words, what do your
eyes
tell you?
A "Small" Catastrophe?
To soften the blow, Farrand finally
did admit to the possibility of catas–
trophe. But it was only a "small" and
" local" catastrophe - onc we might
imagine today.
"Certainly the death ( sutfocation, in
severa! cases) of the f rozen mammoths
was cataslrophic,
and they were frozen
in a
VERY
short time, geologically
speaking -
probably
ill
m11ch leu than
011e year
...
"Such catastrophes are in accord
with the doctrine of uniformitarianism"
(lbid.,
p.
451).
But were the catastrophes "limited"
and in accord with uniformitarianism?
If
only a few ísolated animals or
bone remaios werc found, perhaps
yes.
But how does one explain tens of thou–
sands of tusks; in sorne cases fully pre–
served animals; in other places fossils
which give the appearance of multi-mile–
wide and long disaster areas? How does
one explain these worldwide records
al!
of which curiously have a "catastrophic"
flavor?
These are
NOT
compatible with uni–
formitarianism - as sorne scientists are
coming to realize. No uniformitarian
theory will explain the cstimated re–
mains of
TEN MILLJON
extinct ani–
mals along the rivers of northern Siberia.
The Action of Water
In previous articles we have dis–
cussed the vast evidencc of watery
catastrophe so paiofully cvident as a
primary cause of animal extinction.
Suffice it here to discuss ooe rather
uncommon example.
The Scablands
It concerns the so·called scablands of
the Pacific Northwest. Few people are
aware of this area's uniqueness.
These
2800
square miles of Columbia
Basin scablands are very puzzling. Hcre
the loess ( supposedly wind-deposited
material) has been stripped off and the
volcanic basalt surface scoured on an
enormous scale. The Scablands are
streaked with a gigaotic system of
abandoned channels. Sorne of these
rack basins are more than one hundrcd