´óÏó´«Ã½

« Previous | Main | Next »

The world's oldest footprints

Post categories:

William Crawley | 17:17 UK time, Friday, 22 June 2007

valentia.JPGI'm back from what Davy Sims has described as my "secret mission". The Blueprint team has been filming on off the coast of country Kerry. I took this picture -- which is why you can see part of my palmprint at the bottom of the image (I'm not a cameraman, ok?). We were filming the pre-title sequence of the second programme in the series, which deals with the colonisation of this island by plants and animals, and there's really no better place in Ireland to do that. Generations of Valentia Islanders have known about these strange markings on the shore. They were known locally as "the Devil's hooves"; but in the 1990s they were finally investigated scientifically and we know now that these are -- amazingly -- the oldest intact footprints in the world. They are 385 million years old and they mark the moment when primitive marine reptiles walked on the land. Signs on the island these days mark the "Tetrapod trackway", but most visitors don't seem to appreciate just how significant these tracks are. Hopefully, our Blueprint series will bring this scientific find to a much larger audience.

Matthew Parkes, a geologist at the , who authored a guide to the tetrapod tracks, joined us on Valentia to keep me right on the science and to guard a fairly significant fossil he'd brought with him. This was a fossil, the oldest plant ever found on Irish soil and the forerunner of all the plants we now recognise on the island. I held this 425 million year old fossil in my hand for a piece to camera on the rocks near the tetrapod tracks and was relieved to return it to Matthew in one piece.

Which is not to say that our pieces to camera were without incident. It hardly stopped raining for the entire time we were on the island, which doesn't make for a great opening title sequence. At times, Carole O'Kane, our longsuffering programme director, must have wondered if we'd leave the island with any usable footage. But we managed to film during lulls in the weather, and the results apparently look pretty good. Jim Creagh also captured a very decent sunrise for the top of the programme, which meant getting up at 3.30 am and gathering about two hours of tape (he would wish me to point out that he sat beside the camera throughout, while Carole read Hello magazine in the car!).

I'll leave some pictures from the shoot on my page -- come by and say hello. I won't include any pictures of my rental car being pulled out of a ditch by one of the islanders in a 4x4.

Thanks to Davy for minding the shop for a couple of days.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 07:53 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

Here we go again! cue PB and Billy to give us their indepth (cough) "knowledge" on geology...yawn...

  • 2.
  • At 08:02 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • alan wrote:

William
quote
This was a Cooksonia fossil, the oldest plan ever found on Irish soil and the forerunner of all the plants we now recognise on the island.

What? - Even older than the evolution conspiracy plan?

Alan, you got me. I've corrected that un intentional typo!

  • 4.
  • At 08:41 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • Cheryl (Belfast) wrote:

Very funny. I hope you didn't damage the rental car Will. Tut!

Leave it to you to be filming a major natural history series for the bbc. Don't you know that this whole subject will just put a cat among the pidgeons every time you write a diary note here? Now every creationsist in the country is gunning for you! Keep this up and they'll flatten you to the size of a cooksonia fossil!

Love the pics.

  • 5.
  • At 09:38 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • wrote:

Cooksonia pidgeons.

Anyway, yes the science-resisters will no doubt have some intriguing insights on this, as they do in the continuing discussion HERE about evolutionary theory, Genesis and 'evidence' (it's a thread which is close to extinction itself actually).

  • 6.
  • At 11:44 PM on 22 Jun 2007,
  • Jen Erik wrote:

And the winner for best coat-trailing is...

  • 7.
  • At 12:05 AM on 23 Jun 2007,
  • David (Oxford) wrote:

Where's the coat-trailing? I'm just glad the evolutionists and creationists are staying over at Belfast's Biblical Flood having their irritating debate! This footprint stuff is really intriguing. Looking forward to seeing the programme.

  • 8.
  • At 01:40 AM on 23 Jun 2007,
  • wrote:

David- Do you think all debate is irritating or just this one? It would appear you're easily irritated, and I'm just glad you found it irritating enough to stay away.

  • 9.
  • At 09:50 PM on 23 Jun 2007,
  • wrote:

Well, he does have a point - there is no use in trying to convince creationists - their brains are far too tiny and their appreciation of science far too vestigial. You may as well try to teach quantum physics to a goat. Most of us engage in the "debate" (i.e. playing with the stable door long after the evolutionary horse has bolted) for its entertainment value, but we are aware that it can be off-putting for some people who think that there is an actual debate occurring. Sad, yes, but there are those of us scientists who enjoy baiting these poor creatures. Maybe that makes us sadists.

But as for the footprints - wow! As a kid I had always been told that Ireland had been overlooked by the dinosaurs (that we were at the bottom of the sea or some such). It's great to know that there were beasties kicking around our green 'n' pleasant (although it would have been different back then - I don't think Paisley had been born). We need more of this sort of thing. Good work, William!

  • 10.
  • At 11:56 PM on 23 Jun 2007,
  • Jen Erik wrote:

Amenhotep, mileage varies - it's not my idea of amusement - but fine if it's yours. Perhaps some kind of blog-sharing arrangement would be possible?
If William posts about Blueprint on even numbered days, we could have the ever-popular witty quips about creationists, but if he posts on odd numbered days, everyone has to post elephant jokes instead.

  • 11.
  • At 04:36 AM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • wrote:

I'm glad you guys are having a good discussion about what constitutes a good discussion. Live and let live, people. Don't like a conversation? Nobody is standing over you making you read it or even making you acknowledge its existence. I'm constantly amazed that this sort of thing seems to be an issue for some people. I generally ignore stuff I'm not interested in, I encourage everyone else to do the same.

  • 12.
  • At 09:49 PM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • Philip Campbell wrote:

Can't help wondering - if the human brain evolved by accident, how can we trust the ideas it produces? (like some of those above?)

At least 'Creationists' believe that design came from a Designer. Logical, isn't it?

  • 13.
  • At 09:07 AM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • pb wrote:

DD you have some nerve slating my knowledge on evolution when you are just as much a layman as I am.

And as for Amen salting me, well Prof Nevin is a world authority on genetic and a creationist, so where does that leave you with a mere Phd in genetics Amen?

I never cease to be amazed at the level of ad hominem attacks by evolutionists to shore up the gaping holes in their theory.

(I am not a dogmatist on the subject, unliek DD and Amen, I guess both evolution and creationist ideas will ever continue to be revised in the future).

However, I was reading a little at the weekend, and apparently there is no fossilised evidence of plant evolution, unless you know better (note the lack of dogmatism).

PB

  • 14.
  • At 03:03 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:


...watch two science phds and two ardent evolutionists totally flounder in trying to provide a shred of actual evidence in favour of the evolution of feathers;-

/blogs/ni/2007/06/belfasts_biblical_flood_1.html

PB

  • 15.
  • At 04:08 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • wrote:

PB- Your accusations of ad hominem come after two of your own paragraphs which encapsulate the very definition of that idea.

Just pointing that out.

  • 16.
  • At 04:52 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

PB

But PB I actually go and try to find something about it instead of wallowing in willful ignorance.

Amen answered you on the other thread on Prof Nevin(argument from authority).

PB it is difficult to mount an ad hominem when you do not actually present any evidence!

PB you are a dogmatist! of course evolution can be revised! Biblical creationism since it cannot be falsified and is not science rather a fundamentalist religious belief can't.

PB look up on plant evolution and stop expecting people to do all the hard work for you.

You are a perfect eg., of Amen's point about creationists.

regards

DD

ps. Philip Campbell, evolution by natural selection is not by "accident".

  • 17.
  • At 07:37 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Dylan Dog wrote:

You are funny PB!

The evidence has been presented it is not our fault if can't understand it!

Yep people should look up the thread they can see someone who commits all the fallacies and is full of bluster but cannot even give one(not even one!) piece of evidence to back up his position!(that's you btw PB, I know you fundies don't do irony)

Luv ya!

DDx

  • 18.
  • At 12:39 AM on 30 Jun 2007,
  • wrote:

*sigh* It seems Mick has taught Will a lesson in weblog promotion: find some dry grass, drop a match...

"...there is no use in trying to convince creationists - their brains are far too tiny and their appreciation of science far too vestigial."

Look up Troll on Google and I'm sure you come top of the list.

"Can't help wondering - if the human brain evolved by accident, how can we trust the ideas it produces?"

It didn't evolve by accident, evolution the process (not the bag term) is a fairly defined series of probabilistic outcomes at the genetic level. If you ever hear anyone use the word 'random' in a conversation about evolution ask them for a mathematical proof of same in an open system...

"...apparently there is no fossilised evidence of plant evolution..."

That's somewhat of a logical fallacy considering fossils are absolute points in time and evolution is changes in population over time... The fossil Will mentions is an intermediate form though, the rest is assumption I'm afraid.

  • 19.
  • At 04:20 PM on 01 Jul 2007,
  • Eagle1 wrote:

I don't get it Stephen. Weblog promotion? You can hardly blame Will for writing in his broadcasting diary what he's been filming, right? I didn't know about Valentia island's tetrapod - really amzing stuff, Will, can't wait to see this on tv.

This post is closed to new comments.

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.