Brachiopods
Oard (2011) Misidentifies Brachiopods as Mollusks and the Consequences
Kevin R. Henke
December 14, 2016; Updated November 28, 2021
Oard (2011, pp. 55-56; Figure 3.6 on p. 57; p. 73) argues that the closed shells of brachiopods and clams in the geologic record are an indication of rapid burial, presumably from Noah’s Flood. Oard (2011, p. 55) states:
“The rapid deposition of sedimentary rocks is seen in the position of buried mollusks, animals such as clams and brachiopods.” [my emphasis]
Here, Oard (2011, p. 55) makes the serious mistake of referring to brachiopods as mollusks. He repeats this misidentification in Figure 2.10 in Oard (2008, p. 29). Whereas clams (also called bivalves) are mollusks and are in the phylum Mollusca, brachiopods are not mollusks. They have their own phylum (Levin 2010, pp. A2-A3). Brachiopods and mollusks are completely different animals and the shells of the two groups have very distinctive symmetries.
Although they are in different phyla, both brachiopods and bivalves consist of two shells. Brachiopods are divided into two classes: inarticulates and articulates (Levin 2010, p. A2). The shells of inarticulate brachiopods (such as Lingula) are held together by muscles, which would decay after death and possibly lead to open and separate shells. In contrast, the more common articulate brachiopods often have closed shells in the geologic record not necessarily because of rapid burial as Oard (2011, pp. 55-56, 73) speculates, but because they usually have hard calcium carbonate teeth and sockets that allow them to remain closed after death. Certainly, some brachiopods and clams were buried rapidly by debris flows, such as described in Sweetman and Insole (2010) and Zabini et al. (2010; 2012), but this is no evidence that the flows were part of a worldwide Flood.
Based on field studies of modern environments, laboratory studies and actualism, bivalve shells in the geologic record could experience a wide variety of conditions at the time of death and burial, which would range anywhere from extremely violent conditions (e.g., sediment flows, tsunamis and storm waves) to quiet conditions and slow burial. Based on these various conditions, bivalve shells could: 1) be shattered into fragments and perhaps accumulated with other fragments into coquina, 2) have whole and unbroken, but unhinged shells 3) have whole and still hinged together, but open shells (Figure 1) or 4) have whole, hinged together and closed shells.
Rather than looking at the conditions of the shells and other surrounding evidence in a Paleozoic or Mesozoic sedimentary rock layer to determine depositional conditions, YECs tend to automatically invoke Noah’s Flood for any marine Paleozoic or Mesozoic rock without ever having to examine the evidence. Even when geologists provide solid evidence that refutes BEDS and other Flood geology scenarios, YECs will either ignore the evidence or they will use their fertile imaginations and try to explain away any criticism of a Flood origin. Is there any test involving a Paleozoic or Mesozoic sedimentary rock that YECs would admit are incompatible with Noah’s Flood or a young-Earth? No. According to the YEC worldview, if the Paleozoic and Mesozoic shells are fragmented and form a coquina, then strong currents from the Flood must have been responsible. If the two shells are unbroken, but unhinged, fairly strong currents from Noah’s Flood separated the shells. If the shells are hinged and open, Noah’s Flood was still responsible. If the shells are hinged and closed, Oard (2011, pp. 55-56, 73) says that the animals were rapidly buried by the Flood. This is an unfalsifiable and unscientific approach to geologic evidence. No matter the conditions of a Paleozoic or Mesozoic shell, YECs will always find a way to claim that Noah’s Flood was responsible. In contrast, geologists look at the shells and surrounding evidence to determine whether the animals were buried quickly in a shallow marine environment or died and were buried slowly in an ancient lake. Because bivalves and brachiopods can die and possibly be buried under a wide variety of conditions, any interpretation of these conditions must consider the types and conditions of other fossils in the rocks, as well as sedimentary structures, textures, and facies modeling, and not just whether or not shells are open or closed. While actualism allows brachiopods and bivalves to die and be buried under a wide variety of conditions, young-Earth creationism does not have the luxury of extensive quiet conditions and slow burial, even though there are many examples of this in the sedimentary record (e.g., Brady 2016; Falcon-Lang 1999). Furthermore, evolution predicts that we would not expect to find clams and brachiopods in undeformed Archean Precambrian rocks. We would also not expect to find marine brachiopods in the middle of a thick sandstone, where other abundant evidence indicates that the sediments in the rock formed in an ancient far-inland desert. In addition, we would not expect to find in-situ human and dinosaur remains in the same formation. So, while actualism and biological evolution are falsifiable science, Oard (2009a, p. 120; 2011, pp. 114, 117) either ignores or attempts through special pleading to force every Mesozoic and older sedimentary fossil and structure into his ridiculous BEDS (“Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments”) Flood geology scenario. In doing so, he creates an unscientific and seemingly unfalsifiable mess involving ad hoc delusions. Under the YEC scenario, unfalsifiable Flood geology has no predictive power and explains nothing.
Figure 1: Open, but still hinged, bivalve (mollusk) shells found on a modern California beach. Photographs taken by the author.
References
Brady, M. 2016. “Middle to Upper Devonian Skeletal Concentrations from Carbon-dominated Settings of North America: Investigating the Effects of Bioclast Input and Burial Rates across Multiple Temporal and Spatial Scales”, Palaios, v. 31, pp. 302-318.
Falcon-Lang, H.J. 1999. “Fire Ecology of a Late Carboniferous Floodplain, Joggins, Nova Scotia”, Journal of the Geological Society, London, v. 156, pp. 137-148.
Levin, H. 2010. The Earth through Time, 9th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ.
Oard, M.J. 2008. Flood by Design, Master Books: Green Forest, AR.
Oard, M.J. 2009a. Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages', chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.
Oard, M.J. 2011. Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries: How the Genesis Flood Makes Sense of Dinosaur Evidence – including Tracks, Nests, Eggs, and Scavenged Bones, Creation Book Publishers: Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 174pp.
Sweetman, S.C. and A.N. Insole. 2010. “The Plant Debris Beds of the Early Cretaceous (Barremian) Wessex Formation of the Isle of Wight, Southern England: Their Genesis and Palaeontological Significance”, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 292, pp. 409-424.
Zabini, C., E.P. Bosetti, and M. Holz. 2010. “Taphonomy and Taphofacies Analysis of Lingulid Brachiopods from Devonia Sequences of the Paraná Basin, Brazil,” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 292, pp. 44-56.
Zabini, C., J.D. Schiffbauer, S. Xiao, and M. Kowaleski. 2012. “Biomineralization, Taphonomy, and Diagenesis of Paleozoic Lingulide Brachiopod Shells Preserved in Silicified Mudstone Concretion”, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 326-328, pp. 118-127.