Abstract

Alleged Cretaceous finger

Background

Analysis

In order to claim the "finger" as a reliable out-of-place fossil, one would need convincing documentation that it was once naturally embedded in an ancient rock formation, as well as convincing evidence that it was an actual fossil finger. So far, neither has been provided. The lack of clear evidence about the stone's place of origin alone undermines its possible anti-evolutionary value. It could well have been found in or near a gravel Cretaceous gravel pile as reported, but we have no independent way of verifying this. Even if the account were true as told, the object could have fallen from an overlying formation, or been tossed or placed there by someone. One can find cigarettes and gum wrappers in gravel piles also, but it would not be prudent to assume they came from the Cretaceous period.

In view of the lack of rigorous evidence on the origin of the "finger," it is almost moot whether it is a real finger fossil or not. However, since it would be an interesting fossil if real, regardless of its alleged out-of-place status, let us briefly examine this issue. Despite Baugh's insistence that it is virtually identical to a real human finger, it actually shows a number of anatomic inconsistencies. The supposed finger-nail is narrower on the proximal than distal end, and there is a furrow running lengthwise along the supposed top of the sepcimen which is not a normal feature of a real finger. It also shows no indication of knuckles, nor any evidence of trauma at the proximal end. One might ask how the finger became separated from the rest of the body without such indications.

CAT scan of alleged Cretaceous finger (photo link to CEM website)

Baugh states that a spiral CAT scan was done on the "finger," and declares that "scientific analysis shows replaced bone, tissue, and ligaments. It has been identified as the fourth finger on a girl’s left hand."[2] The latter assertion is reminiscent of his overstated claims regarding supposed human footprints, where vague impressions disputed even by other creationists are declared by Baugh to be so clearly human one can identify whether they are male or female. In fact, there are no clear indications of bones, ligaments, or other specific structures in the CAT scans of the supposed finger. All that is visible are some ill-defined darker areas toward the center of the object. These are expected in any natural stone, due to the greater amount of material the radiation must pass through near the middle of the stone.

Cross section of the "finger" (photo link to www.biblebelieers.org website)

The lack of clear bones is also evident in the cross sections of the finger, which show some ill-defined concentric bands, but no distinct boundaries. The innermost, lighter-toned region (presumed to be a bone) also is oriented much closer to one side than the other, rather than being more centered as would be expected for a bone. Baugh and others[4] have claimed that the tiny dots represent bone pores, but they extend well beyond the area assumed to be bone, and thus seem to refute rather than support the bone contention. It seems more likely the tiny structures represent particles of contrasting sediment or microfossils (perhaps osctracodes and/or forams), but evidently the finger proponents have not done the rigorous microscopic work needed to conclusively identify them.

Another consideration is that such soft-tissue preservation is not known for other Cretaceous fossils of Texas. Fossils are abundant in Texas. However, almost all are impressions, steinkerns (natural molds), hard-parts that are partially or entirely mineral-replaced. Evidently none include vertebrate soft tissue preservation. Whatever the factors of taphonomy responsible for this, it seems unlikely that a single finger would be preserved with all flesh and bone pristinely mineralized, and not even scrappy remains of flesh from other mammals, reptiles, fishes, amphibians, or invertebrates that occur in Cretaceous rocks in Texas.

Serpulid worm tubes, Cretaceous, Glen Rose Formation, Texas

Baugh's web site states, "soft tissue is fossilized with remarkable detail when the organism is rapidly buried soon after or before death." As alleged evidence of this, Baugh shows a photograph of supposed "well-preserved worm fossils" from the Glen Rose area. However, the photo does not show fossilized worms, but rather surpulid worm burrows--an important distinction, as the latter consists of mineralized tube-like linings of sediment mixed with worm secretions, not soft tissue. Indeed, Baugh's statements about the ability of rapid burial to preserve soft tissue beg the question of why then there are not countless examples of soft tissue preservation from humans, other mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, and other creatures from local strata. After all, in Baugh's model of earth history, all of these organisms lived together, and then died together in a single Flood a few thousand years ago.

In view of the above considerations, as well as the consistent lack of human remains throughout Mesozoic formations, Baugh's claims about the finger are questionable at best. As to what it really is, no consensus has yet developed. Some observers have suggested that the finger may be an invertebrate burrow or a cephalopod fossil. While I see little evidence of the latter, it could be an burrow infilling. It also has the general appearance of a crustacean carapace, though no demonstrable association with known crustacean taxa has been made. Alternatively, it could just be an elongate stone or concretion that happens to resemble a finger. If one looks around a pile or rocks long enough, one can find all sorts of "sports of nature" which resemble familiar objects--much like finding faces in the clouds. Perhaps a more conclusive assessment of what the object really is could be made if Baugh allowed experts on Texas geology and paleontology to study it. One would think he at least would want to confirm whether or not its lithology is consistent with known Cretaceous rocks of Texas, but as of this writing, evidently he has not done this.

Conclusions

As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Baugh and other promoters of the "fossilized finger" have not conclusively established that it is a real fossil. Nor have they demonstrated a clear association with an ancient formation, undermining its possible value as an out-of-place object. Without this evidence, the object is no more than a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place fossil.

References

[2] Baugh, Carl, and David Lines, Creation Evidence Museum website at: http://www.creationevidence.org.

[3] AIG Website article: Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use

[4]Biblebelievers.org website On the same anomymous page with the finger proportions, this site claims: "Excavations of this limestone has also revealed a child's tooth and human hair." Evidently the authors are unaware that creationists, including even Baugh, abandoned the "human tooth" claims after it was shown to belong to a Cretaceous fish . The human hair claim evidently traces to an excavation during the 1980's when Baugh was using a volunteer's hairbrush to clean a track bed. As recounted by local rancher Al West, who was present during the excavations, at one point Baugh noticed a hair on the substrate. Before realizing it had come from the brush, Baugh suggested it was a "fossil human hair." After this notion was met with consternation even by creationist on-lookers, Baugh dropped the matter, but evidently it somehow survived to resurface in this Australian website.