How do geologists and paleontologists explain microfossils of pollen, spores, angiosperms, gymnosperms, and at least one winged insect, in Eocambrian (Upper Precambrian) rock?
"Pollen Paradox" by Emil Silvestru and Carl Wieland
"The discovery of pollen and spores in beds considered Precambrian
(Proterozoic) has received brief notice in geological journals and the press."
(Stainforth, R. M., "Occurance of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana", Nature, 1966, 210, pp. 292-296.)
"The great majority are undeterminable as to genus and species, being mainly shreds of angiosperm wood, but there are also gymnosperm tracheids with large round bordered pits, and at least one good, winged, six-legged insect with compound eyes." (Sahni, B., "Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab", Nature, 1944, 153, p. 462.)
To Sahni, this meant the Salt Range Formation must be Eocene. He later found plant fragments not only in the kallar (thin layers of saline earth) but in associated solid rock layers composed of dolomite and shale. In his report, Sahni (1945, p. x) said "stringent precautions" were taken to prevent contamination of the samples with modern organic remains. He also emphasized that samples were taken from locations where the geological evidence ruled out intrusion from younger strata.
Although modern geological reports acknowledge overthrusts in the Salt Range, they unanimously declare the Salt Range Formation to be Eocambrian, not Eocene. (Yeats et al. 1984, Butler et al. 1987, Jauné and Lillie 1988, Baker et al. 1988, Pennock et al. 1989, McDougall and Khan 1990).
McDougall, J. W., and Khan, S. H., 1990, Strike-slip faulting in a foreland fold-thrust belt: The Kalabagh Fault and Western Salt Range,
Pakistan: Tectonics, v. 9, pp. 1061-1075.
Eocene: dated from about 56 to 34 million years ago
Eocambrian (Upper Precambrian): dated from about 1.6 billion to 600 million years ago