Life in a Glass House: Diatoms Shatter Young Earth Flood Geology

Diatom-slideRecently, while researching the diversity of life found in the fossil record for a seminar I will be giving in a few weeks, I was drawn into the fascinating world of diatoms.  Diatoms, which are single-celled organisms that live in glass-houses in almost any moist environment, are visually stunning, and so I thought I might use them to illustrate the typically unseen diversity of creation.

One fact in particular jumped out at me: diatom fossils are only found from the Jurassic period to the present day.

Well, why only the top portion of the fossil record, and what does this mean for Earth’s history, including young-earth creationism?

Before I get to that, I note that diatoms live in “glass houses.”  Doesn’t sound safe at all, right? Yet diatoms are able to synthesize glass walls, which they erect around the outside of their cell, presumably for protection in the wild world of aquatic microscopic life.  Interestingly, a number of organisms have learned to enjoy eating diatoms, glass and all.

Scanning electron microscope image of a single species of diatoms showing the intricate design of the glass case that once held a living cell.  Image from:

Scanning electron microscope image of a single species of diatoms showing the intricate design of the glass case that once held a living cell. Image from:

Just how successful are the diatoms and their glass houses?  There are more species of diatoms than there are of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians combined: about 100,000! There are so many shapes and sizes you can think of the as the snowflakes of the microbiological world. By most estimates they account for one quarter of the oxygen produced on Earth.  They also account for 40 to 50% of the primary food production in the oceans.   Clearly, diatoms are essential components of the Earth’s ecosystem as it functions today.

As you might imagine, glass cases are readily preserved in the fossil record compared to organisms soft parts.  Vast quantities of glass shells of dead diatoms are found on the bottoms of the oceans and lakes of the Earth today.  Deposits of diatoms, sometimes hundreds of feet thick, are found in the geological column.  Thick layers of nearly 100% diatoms are called diatomaceous earth, which is mined for a variety of commercial uses.   So if diatoms are present in the water, one can expect that diatoms will be preserved in sediments produced under those water bodies.

Scanning electron microscope image of broken bits of diatoms.  Massive deposits with countless number of these glass remains are found all around the world and through the upper 1/3 of the geological column.

Scanning electron microscope image of broken bits of diatoms. Massive deposits with countless number of these glass remains are found all around the world and through the upper 1/3 of the geological column.

Glass houses are a late comer to the microorganism bag of tricks

GeologicTimeScale-DiatomsThe lack of diatoms in any portion of the geological column lower than the Jurassic strongly suggests that glass-house diatoms did not exist prior to the Jurassic age.  Non-glass producing species probably lived in the Triassic but they, not surprisingly, were not preserved.  Yet as soon as any species obtained the ability to produce a glass exterior wall, those walls should have been readily preserved in the fossil record.  The glass-producing novelty was a hit and soon diatoms filled the oceans and lakes.  While dinosaurs could not maintain dominion over the land the diatoms not only outlived the dinosaurs but have become one of the most common organisms on Earth.

Prior to the Jurassic, there were hundreds of thousands of species of single-celled organisms that produced other types of external cells walls. For example, the coccoliths produce a calcium carbonate shell, which are well-preserved in the fossil record. These still exist today.  So we know that glass-walled organisms could have been preserved during this time had they existed.

But, again, they weren’t.

Since diatoms today are so abundant, and since they are such an important member of the food chain, the lack of diatoms in the past allows us to infer that other organisms must have once played a much more dominant role in the food chain.

Several species of diatoms viewed under a light microscope.  It is the glass housing that forms the shapes that you see here.

Several species of diatoms viewed under a light microscope. It is the glass housing that forms the shapes that you see here.

Diatoms: Another Failed Test of Flood Geology for Young Earth Creationists

Diatoms are another embarrassment for young earth creationists (YECs).  And yet rarely will you hear them talk about such things.

YECs explain the geological column as a form of hydraulic sorting and/or ecosystem sorting.  The latter hypothesis says that the global flood first covered deep-ocean environments, then covered shallow seas, and finally the lowland tropics. All the while, large animals were running away from the global flood to higher ground, only to be swallowed up later.

While this scenario is fanciful and unsupported by experimental or even simulation data, it has a certain appeal to the evangelical audience that simply wants to know what happened to the dinosaurs.  But ask about other organisms, especially small organisms, and the flood-geology hypothesis is confronted with grave inconsistencies. For example, what about the diatoms?

What would the flood-geology hypothesis predict about the distribution of diatoms in the fossil record? The obvious prediction would be that if diatoms have existed since the creation week, then they should have been widespread prior to Noah’s flood.  At the onset of Noah’s flood, when much of the sediment of the earth was dissolved in water, diatoms shells and living diatoms would be predicted to have become mixed up with the water and sediment column. When sediments were deposited, diatoms should have found themselves randomly distributed throughout the geological column.

Problem is, there is no a priori reason to expect that diatoms should have sorted out into just the upper layers of the geological record, which is what we see today.  In addition, there is no explanation that I know of for explaining the lack of diatoms in the early rock record within a flood-geology model.  In a flood geology sorting model diatoms might be expected to show at least local sorting into sizes and shapes but even this minor form of sorting is not observed in the fossil record.  The hypothesis utterly fails to explain the observed distribution of diatom fossils.

If you search YEC literature, you will probably not find any acknowledgement that diatoms do not fit the flood-geology model. Nor will you find even a brief acknowledgment that diatoms are not found throughout the geological column.  The closest I could come finding a quotation in YEC literature about the origins of diatoms appears in a 2010 Answers in Genesis article, “Diatoms: Living in Glass Houses” by Don DeYoung. In it, he states that:

“Diatoms are said by evolutionists to have originated 180 million years ago, yet their fossils reveal the same intricate designs as living examples. In truth, they first appeared during Creation Week just thousands of years ago, and they have not improved over time. Instead, diatoms display master craftsmanship with unlimited potential”

The 180-million-year date is correct, but DeYoung doesn’t point out the significance of this for the fossil record. He attributes the origins of diatoms to the creation week, thus placing them as part of Earth’s biota from the very beginning.  The article is about the intricate designs and uses of the glass houses of diatoms.  He attributes their designs to an immediate creation, and so he is saying that God created diatoms as glass-house makers.  Therefore diatoms in the creation model should be ubiquitous in the fossil record. Diatoms should be found in the oldest rocks attributed to natural processed after creation.  This would include the Precambrian through the present.

The lack of diatoms in more than 50% of the geological column is a serious problem, as yet unaddressed by the YECs.

Featured image from:×270.jpg


  1. Am I remembering right that in contrast to diatoms, forams are throughout the geologic column?


  2. Interesting stuff. Presumably all silicaceous diatoms form a clade. The molecular record is consistent with such a late origin; see Was the invention of the glasshouse a one-off event, or had it happened repeatedly but failed because of competition for available marine silica? Will we ever know?


    • Paul, I believe they do form a single clade but that doens’t assure that the use of silica was discovered only one. There could have been non-silica using members of the clade for long period of time in which silica-use was discovered twice or more. Since some plant lineages have also learned to produce glass structures the biosynthetic pathways we know it is possible for them to evolve independently. I think it is likely in diatoms there is a single origin but we can’t know for sure.


  3. Thanks for this post! I quite enjoyed it, as usual. I think these kind of organisms are particularly problematic for Flood Geology because there is no real reason, as you noted, as to why they wouldn’t be found all over the place. Similarly with flowering plant pollen and the like. It just “happens” that these just got neatly sorted into time periods?


  4. vastergotland1 says:

    “Diatoms are another embarrassment for young earth creationists (YECs). And yet rarely will you hear them talk about such things.”

    Do you not think that the later follows from the former?


  5. Will a YEC be along shortly to inform you that saying the diatoms were not around until the Jurassic period clearly contradicts what the book of Genesis reveals to us in chapter 1 about the creation of plants that live underwater during the first week of life on Earth? Possibly not.

    “… they have not improved over time”. I see the YECs in DeYoung have (unintentionally?) ruled out the future possibility of their ‘flood geology’ postulating that diatoms only developed glass walls as part of ‘adaptation within kinds’ after the fall but only about say one year before the flood happened.

    (Do some YECs argue that pre-flood rocks were all destroyed/obliterated by the Genesis flood? Though of course they cannot prove any literally worldwide flood just 4,500 years ago, partly because the fossil record with its layers – excluding perhaps the uppermost layers for the last 4,000 + years post-flood where something ordered might be possible – is not nearly as randomly mixed up as you would find had such a catastrophic event really happened.)


  6. Great post! In addition to their distribution as a whole, aren’t species of diatoms preserved in a predictable sequence, like other organisms, as new species evolved? That would add another layer of difficulty, explaining why certain species of diatoms are only found within certain layers. From what I’ve read forams and diatoms make good index fossils for that reason.


    • Absolutely. Funny, I just looked at your comment minutes after posting my follow up article which was on forams. I was going to include the index fossil information for just the reason you suggest but it took more text that I wanted to use. I am attempting to keep my posts shorter with fewer points. I may follow up with yet another post on index fossils. BTW, the bottom graphic on my new post does show the changes over time I just didn’t emphasize them.


  7. Preston Garrison says:

    The fact that one biologist, in his meager spare time, can come up with so many conundrums for the YECs that they really can’t answer, should tell them something. Do you ever feel like you are shooting diatoms in a barrel? :)

    Liked by 1 person

  8. You did not do your homework. This article by Snelling shows that diatomite does not build up by gradual accumulation…in fact it could have only been deposited catastrophically during a Flood or post-Flood event:


    • Hi. Thanks for the feedback. I am well aware that this is what Snelling says. He asserts this without any evidence that is different that him showing that this is what happened. Anyone can say, diatoms did this or that but that doesn’t make there statement truthful. Snelling does provide a reasonable mechanism nor any mechanism for sorting diatoms into only the very top layers of flood deposits. The whale example has a lot of problems and Snelling does not report the all of the hypotheses of the original authors. Locally diatoms can be deposited as very high rates and diatom sludge can be moved around by currents. yes a global flood has currents but the diatom deposits are not consistent with this being the primary deposition mechanism but only a localized (not global) phenomena.


  9. Why drag in YEC silliness at all? It’s not worth the bother, imo. You will never convince them no matter how high the pile of reliable contradictory evidence, no matter how unassailable your logic. They do not wish to be convinced and they don’t care a whit about scientifically demonstrable truth. They only wish to preserve their belief system. Theirs is a different world and they are happy there.


  10. would you mind explaining how a whale skeleton was found whithin diotom earth if it gets deposited over billions of years? did it fall on top and get fossilised before it got covered?


    • Hi, I’d have to have an idea of which whale fossils you are talking about becuase there are several possible mechanisms. Certainly “billions of years” is a reach in any case since even several meters of diatomaceous deposits took no more than a million years and probably only 10s of thousands of years to be deposited in many locations. There are whales bones today that are buried in many centimeters of diatoms that have been found showing that the process occurs today. Most whale bones that find themselves at the bottom of the ocean will be decayed before they are covered but not all, the fossils record in many cases records for us the exceptions not the rules but again, I am not sure which fossil you are referring to specifically so I can’t be very specific in my response.


Comments or Questions?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: