Home » Intelligent Design » When the Antarctic featured tropical trees ….

When the Antarctic featured tropical trees ….

From Tropical Climate in the Antarctic: Palm Trees Once Thrived On Today’s Icy Coasts 52 Million Years Ago, (ScienceDaily, Aug. 1, 2012), we learn,

The study published in the journal Nature shows that tropical vegetation, including palms and relatives of today’s tropical Baobab trees, was growing on the coast of Antarctica 52 million years ago. These results highlight the extreme contrast between modern and past climatic conditions on Antarctica and the extent of global warmth during periods of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

n an area where the Antarctic ice sheet borders the Southern Ocean today, frost-sensitive and warmth-loving plants such as palms and the ancestors of today’s baobab trees flourished 52 million years ago. The scientists’ evaluations show that the winter temperatures on the Wilkes Land coast of Antarctica were warmer than 10 degrees Celsius at that time, despite three months of polar night. The continental interior, however, was noticeably cooler, with the climate supporting the growth of temperate rainforests characterized by southern beech and Araucaria trees of the type common in New Zealand today. Additional evidence of extremely mild temperatures was provided by analysis of organic compounds that were produced by soil bacteria populating the soils along the Antarctic coast.

The really amazing part was the fact that the plants had to get through months of darkness.

Here’s what the climate was surrealistically like (animal stories interesting, amphibian more scary than dinosaurs, for once; no, really, see it):

Here’s some vid from a Field Museum expedition for fossils, explaining that Antarctica was at one time part of the ancient supercontinent Pangaea, and hadn’t then moved right over the pole:

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

4 Responses to When the Antarctic featured tropical trees ….

  1. As I commented on the article itself when it was first posted a few weeks ago, the continent now named “Antarctica” was located much closer to the Earth’s equator 52 million years ago. People are confusing the name with a location relative to the south geographic pole.

    Come on, guys. I learned about continental drift back in 1968. Where’s the cross pollenation between Biology and Geology?

    If the archeologists had reported that they had found fossils of plam trees in West Africa, would anyone be surprised?

  2. Hello Mahuna,

    Yes, the continents do drift, but during the period they were talking about, Antarctica was already in a south polar position, as far as you can get from the equator. Check out the map for that general time period (http://www.scotese.com/newpage9.htm) at the Paleomap Project. Like you, I would like to see more linking of Biology and Geology.

  3. YEC must disagree.
    First Antarctica was united with all other lands before the biblical flood.
    So it was not in the south pole and there was no snow or darkness to deal with for life below the k-t line.
    After the flood the land was in its present location. it still would of been tropical until a later date.
    In fact they find marsupials etc that lived there along with others.
    Presumptions of geology are leading and defining biological conclusions about this are of earth .

    Its all wrong guessing.

  4. From creation evolution headlines:

    “Well, isn’t this remarkable. First of all, what’s the worry about human-caused global warming if it got much warmer in the past when evolutionists say people weren’t around?

    Obviously all the land animals and plants survived this episode, including the living fossils that are so delicate they tell us humans are making them go extinct.

    And pray tell how they can prove that “Archaea hold on to their structure through millions of years.”

    Second, and even more important, evolutionists have no theory for why the earth should have warmed up at that time.

    Many Biblical creationists, though, without the millions-of-years timeline, believe that the pre-Flood world sported a moderate climate without a large difference between the poles and equator, just like the data indicate. The Flood, however, changed all that, burying the antediluvian world beneath miles of sediment – and ushering in a much more recent Ice Age whose effects are still damping out. Which account is a better match to the data?”

Leave a Reply